Imagine if the Egyptian revolution really is what the Western media is telling you

Western liberal analysts - who have totally dominated the narrative about the 'revolution' in Egypt - have typically been projecting their own values on the situation. That is why, for example, they are simply 'wishing away' the Muslim Brotherhood or suggesting that they are just a bunch of cuddly religious old men.

But just imagine if the revolution is really going to deliver the kind of democracy, freedom and peace the liberals assume. Then the very first thing that must happen is that anti-semitism, which is the core unifying feature of Egyptians, must be curbed. The reason 98% of Egyptians hate Jews is because antisemitism is bred into them from the day they are born. Anti-semitism is not just pumped out of  state-run media and - with full government encouragement -  from every mosque and imam in the country. It also dominates the beliefs and actions of supposedly enlightened lawyers, writers, musicians and trade unionists (who call for the killing of the rare fellow lawyers, writers musicians and trade unionists for daring to speak to Israelis for example).

Curbing anti-semitism (and, of course, its 'acceptable face' dressed as anti-Israel and anti-Americanism) is essential if there is to be any hope of genuine freedom, domocracy and peace.


When the western media starts mentioning this I will start to believe there is such hope.

The Western main stream media is censoring what it shows from Egypt

Numerous bloggers have pointed out the fact that the Western media is deliberately censoring/ignoring the widespread anti-semitism prominent in banners and feelings at the 'pro democracy' camp in Cairo. Here is a good example. But there is another aspect being censored because it simply does not fit in with the ‘narrative’ that the anti-Mubarek demonstrators are peace-loving democrats. This is the violence.

Where Al Jazeera is different from the Western coverage is that Al Jazeera has been showing very graphic videos of horrific violence by both pro and anti- Mubarek supporters including several actual killings and lynchings. The most appalling examples are clearly being committed by the anti-Mubarek supporters (check out Al jazeer'as coverage tonight). The Western media are simply not showing these. Can you imagine how they would be falling over themselves to show those videos if that kind of violence happened in Israel? In fact, given the amount of time they are spending on Egyypt regurtitating the same material wouldn't you have thought they would be interested in showing something new?

What we can look forward to from Egypt.

As usual Sultan Knish gets the Egyptian 'revolution' right and there is a good analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood from Daphne Anson. For anybody who believes the universal media message that nothing but good is going to come out of the 'pro-democracy' revolution in Egypt watch all 90 seconds of this video.

And it has started already. Since the 'revolution'  we have already seen:

• Hamas, emboldened by the prospects of their parent organisation the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, fired a grad rocket at a wedding reception in Israel
• All Hamas prisoners in Egypt were broken out of jail (and have returned to Gaza to plot the next wave of terrorist attacks)
• The entire Hezbollah network who were recently convicted of plotting terrorist attacks against Israeli tourists in Sanai were broken out of jail.
• Today terrorists blew up the gas pipeline in Norther Sinai that provides gas supplied to Israel and Jordan.

Also, isn't it funny how the same liberal-lefties who set the media agenda don't support pro-democracy movements in Islamist countries that wish to destroy Israel (Iran and Syria being obvious examples).

Another update to the LSE Middle East Centre saga

When I raised the issue of the Middle East Centre's manager Dr Chalcraft proposing a motion for an academic boycott of Israel I got the following response from Sir Howard Davies, the LSE Director:

I am replying to your email to me of 15th January.  You refer to the debate at the School on an academic boycott of Israel.  The debate was a joint event organised by the Israeli and Palestine societies here, who both agreed that issues ought to be debated in public.  As you note, Dr Chalcraft proposed the motion and a professor from UCL opposed it.  The motion failed.

You suggest that Dr Chalcraft’s view cannot be consistent with our claim that the Middle East Centre will provide balanced and informed analysis of the region.  I do not agree.  Professor Fawaz Gerges, director of the centre, has said: “The Middle East Centre is committed to rigorous research and scholarship with the scrupulous preservation of its academic independence.  There is a distinction between the policy of an institution and the views of individual academics, who retain their freedom of opinion and hold diverse views on many subjects.  This variety can help provide collective strength and balance in dealing with controversial matters.  More than 20 academics are involved in the Middle East Centre (through its research group and management group) and all of them are outstanding scholars of the region”.

You go on to say that you “can no longer believe the claim that the Middle East Centre was in no way to blame for the map” in our magazine which you have complained about before.  I find this a remarkable assertion.  Effectively you are accusing me and Claire Sanders of lying to you.  We have explained clearly the circumstances in which the map was chosen and have explained that it is unfortunate.  But it was not a matter for the centre itself. 

Howard Davies

Here is my self-explanatory response:

Dear Sir Howard

Thank you for your response.

>I am replying to your email to me of 15th January. You refer to the debate at the School on an academic boycott of Israel. The debate was a joint event organised by the Israeli and Palestine societies here, who both agreed that issues ought to be debated in public.

I look forward then to future debates proposing an academic boycott of Pakistan (or indeed virtually any of the world's 58 Muslim states which have anti-Chrisitian and anti-semitic policies and laws, not to mention numerous occupations and violations of human rights), an academic boycott of America (for conducting 'imperialist wars' in the Middle East), an academic boycott of China (for its occupation of Tibet and violation of human rights) , an academic boycott of the UK (see America), an academic boycott of Switzerland (for its banning of Muslim minarets), etc.

Can you please let me know when each of these debates is taking place at LSE in the near future. If they are not, or if you believe that any of those are issues should NOT be debated in public, then am I allowed to call you an anti-semite? Because I am afraid that is the only valid conclusion to draw.


>As you note, Dr Chalcraft proposed the motion and a professor from UCL opposed it. The motion failed.; You suggest that Dr Chalcraft’s view cannot be consistent with our claim that the Middle East Centre will provide balanced and informed analysis of the region. I do not agree.

Since Dr Chalcraft is listed on the LSE website as a manager of the Middle East Centre I think any rational person would tend to agree with me and not you. Oh and by the way independent attendees of the debate (I was not there) felt that Dr Chalcroft destroys the credibility not just of the Middle East Centre but of LSE as a a whole.

> You go on to say that you “can no longer believe the claim that the Middle East Centre was in no way to blame for the map” in our magazine which you have complained about before. I find this a remarkable assertion. Effectively you are accusing me and Claire Sanders of lying to you. We have explained clearly the circumstances in which the map was chosen and have explained that it is unfortunate. But it was not a matter for the centre itself.

I do not know if you are lying or if this was an incredible coincidence. If it was the latter then I apologise. But when I hear yet again that LSE this week supported further outrageous behaviour by anti-Israel fanatics of the PalSoc (brandishing fake guns and blood and intimidating Jewish students) then perphaps you will apologise for allowing, under your Directorship, a fine institution to have become a place where irrational anti-Israel activities dominate the campus and Jewish students no longer feel comfortable or safe.

Finally, here is Sir Howard Davies's helpful response (received 29 Jan 2011) to the above:

Your comments are not worthy of reply.

It is no wonder that LSE has become the number one Israel hatefest centre under his directorship. He is a complete asshole.

Yet another update to this story here.

LSE's anti-Israel Middle East Centre: Update

In response to the discovery here that LSE was advertising its new Middle East Centre with a map of the Middle East that eradicated Israel, the LSE's Vice-Chancellor Sir Howard Davies replied (on 13 January 2011) as follows:

"Thank you for your e-mail concerning the map which was used to illustrate a story about our new Middle East Centre in LSE Connect. This was an error on our part which you are quite right to point out.

I have spoken to Claire Sanders, the editor of LSE Connect, who has just returned from sick leave. She will be e-mailing you separately, but has assured me that the use of this particular map was entirely unintentional.

The map was chosen at the design stage simply to brighten and illustrate a page of text - unfortunately we didn't look closely enough at the image (as we should have) to see that it was entirely inappropriate. The map in question came from a collection of stock images held by an external agency - and I have been assured that we will not use this agency again. It has already been removed from the online version of the magazine and an apology for this mistake will be printed in the next edition of LSE Connect.

Above all, I would like to stress that the Middle East Centre was entirely uninvolved in the error. The centre is determined to provide balanced and informed analysis of the region, to include Arab states, Iran, Israel, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

So, a very hopeful response. Except that on 11 January 2011  a debate took place at the LSE in which Senior Lecturer Dr. John Chalcraft proposed the motion: "This House Believes in an Academic Boycott of Israel".  It turns out that this is the very same Dr. John Chalcraft who is listed as part of the management team of the Middle East Centre on the LSE's website. This is not exactly consistent with Howard's claim that "The centre is determined to provide balanced and informed analysis of the region...."

In this light of this simply incredible revelation it is difficult to believe the claim that The Middle East Centre was blameless for the map that eliminated Israel in LSE Connect.

Further Update

The futility of Israel's new rules of engagement

A typically brilliant article by Michael Totten describes in detail the extent to which the Israeli army will go to minimise civilian casualties in any future war.

The problem with the strategy is that it guarantees that Israel will be incapable of decisive victory. It also guarantees excessive and unnecessary losses of Israeli forces. For example, although it is known for certain that Hezbollah (and of course Hamas) is using mosques and clinics as both command centres and weapons storage facilities, the IDF will not be allowed to attack them.

Israel took excessive care in both the 2006 Lebanon war and the 2009 Gaza war to minimise civilian casualties - more than any other military force in history - and yet the world still condemned her. In response to pressure from the left-wing judiciary in Israel, the IDF announced in 2010 that it was instigating even tighter rules of engagement for future conflicts. Some of the fruits of this change are evidenced in Totten's report. But none of that will make an iota of difference to world reaction, which will still condemn Israel no matter what. The very act of self-defence by Israel is illegitimate in the eyes of most of the world.

The terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas must be laughing their heads off at the extent Israel will go to appease world opinion. And they will be futher stockpiling weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals.

Frankie Boyle: The hypocrisy

The 'comedian' Frankie Boyle is all over the news today. The media are outraged at his 'racist' remarks in his latest Channel 4 show. This is the same media of course who were totally indifferent to his several previous barrages of vicious anti-semitism dressed up as hatred of Israel.

So why the outrage this time? They are outraged that he used the "P-word" (the media are not even allowed to spell out 'Paki') and the "N-word". But if you actually read what he said, you can see that by P's and N's he was clearly referring to Arabs/Muslims and, in contrast to his open hatred for Jewish Israelis, he was actually expressing genuine sympathy with them (and especially the Taliban); this was not an anti-P or anti-N attack but a typically ignorant attack against the British armed forces and Defence establishment:

• He said: “Basically we are murdering a load of shepherds. What gets me is our callousness as a society when we read out our dead on the news first, because our lives are more important. Other people’s aren’t worth as much.”
• Adopting a newsreader’s tone, he added: “A bomb went off in Kandahar today, killing two British servicemen, three UN relief workers and a whole bunch of P****.”
• Later he said: “The Ministry of Defence? At least in the old days we were honest, it was The Ministry of War.”
• In a posh phone voice he added: “Hello Ministry of War, department of n*****-bombing, how can I help?”

So Boyle genuinely thinks the Taliban and Al Quaeda are just a bunch of innocent shepherds who deserve our sympathy, while the British armed forces are racist murderers. But not one media report focused on this aspect of Boyle's show. They were only concerned about the offense cause to Ps and Ns.

Now, isn't there something wrong here? When Boyle issues blood libels against Jewish Israelis, Jews have no right to feel offended. And when Boyle slanders British troops at the same time as showing his sympathy with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the outrage is not against these disgusting views promoted without response to millions of (mainly) politically ignorant and easily influenced teenagers. No, the only outrage allowed is his use of the P and N-words (in a context where he was actually expressing sympathy with all P's and N's, but most of all sympathy with all Muslims).

Frankie Boyle has proved himself a racist that's for sure. But his racism is against loyal Englishmen, Jewish Israelis and any Jew who does not believe the State of Israel should be wiped out. And in the eyes of the media those people have no right to be offended no matter how viciously they are slandered.

The JC sinks lower and lower

Daphne Anson has another very good article exposing the transformation of the Jewish Chronicle that I have also blogged about recently. Rapidly the JC is morphing into a Guardian look-alike, with its increasingly central contributions from anti-Zionists.

Daphne's article highlights the fact that Nicholas Saphir, the Chair of the anti-Zionist New Israel Fund (UK), is a trustee of the Kessler Foundation, which owns the Jewish Chronicle. Last week the New Israel Fund had a 4-page pullout in the JC, and rarely a week goes by nowadays without some major positive focus/article about the NIF.

Today's JC confirms the trend towards the JC's antipathy/indifference toward Israel. Forget the week's barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza or the many stories this week confirming the existential threats against Israel (not a mention anywhere in the paper). Forget even the incredible revelation this week that Henry Kissinger, when he was Sectretary of State in the US in 1973, stated that he could not care less if the Russians gassed all the Jews left in Russia (and that he would certainly not allow the US to intervene if they did so). That fails to get a mention either. No, the big front page story is a rather sympathetic account of a senior editor of the Board of Deputies urging the Board to invite PA envoy Manuel Hassassian to address the Board. What the story of course fails to tell readers is that Hassassian is nothing other than a terrorist supporting liar as revealed clearly by Elder of Zyon.

Digging deeper into the paper things do not get any better. There is a near full page article by Orlando Radice arguing that the real extremists we have to worry about are the Jewish ones. And the letters page has two letters responding to the comments of Isi Liebler (who had had the audacity to criticise 'we must speak out against Israel' UJIA boss Mick Davis). Naturally, both letters are indignant at Isi trying to crush Davis's right to free speech. The only pro-Israel piece in the paper is the regular column by Geoffrey Alderman, but even he is forced on the defensive and no doubt will take the usual flak in next week's letters page.

Imagine if the London student riots had taken place in Israel

Whatever the rights and wrongs of last week's riots in London over student fee increases, there is no doubt that there was violence on both sides, with the police responding to appalling provocation by hardcore anarchists/leftists who infiltrate all such protests.

Quite reasonably, the media response to these incidents has been unanimous condemnation of the protesters and sympathy with the police having to deal with a volatile situation. Although some minor concerns have been expressed about the police 'kettling' tactics, the concept that there could be any mainstream media anger directed at the police is fanciful and the notion that any foreign country might express an opinion of any kind - let alone one which openly criticises the British police and/or government, it simply too bizarre to consider.

So how would you feel – as a typical law-abiding Brit or even as a member of the British government – if Barak Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and the leaders of every other Western government issued statements expressing their deep concern about the UK’s disproportionate police actions and referred the matter to an emergency session of the UN Security Council? And what about if the leaders of every Muslim government, including such beacons of liberty as Gaddafy, Ahmedinejad and Assad, while chairing UN Human Rights committees issuing condemnations of the UK and calls for a worldwide boycott against, also called on British students to rise up and kill every British policeman? And how would you feel about worldwide street protests, whipped into a frenzy by the media, in which thousands march in every capital of the world demanding the total destruction of the UK as a just penalty for its anti-student actions? And finally, I'd imagine you would not be too impressed if every major international charity (led by Oxfam, Christian Aid and War on Want) launched massive appeals, which although initially focused on funding students who were physically or psychologically 'harmed' by the riots, would ultimately be handed to the anarchists so that they could organise new, and more vicious riots.

All pretty bizarre? Not if you further imagine that these riots – with exactly the same level of protester provocation and police response -- had taken place in Israel and if the protesters were mainly Arabs. Actually, it is not hard to imagine because even the most minor skirmish in Israel involving Arab protesters is treated as an international crisis. And for this level of violence all of the above worldwide reactions would have taken place. With absolute certainty.

Perhaps Bibi Netanyahu should start the ball rolling by issuing his own condemnation of the British police in the Knesset, with a direct appeal to David Cameron and William Hague to ‘stop the British police violence immediately’. Then if, in response, Cameron told the Israelis to mind their own business, perhaps Netanyahu might also know how to respond the next time the British and others feel compelled to publicly condemn the Israelis for far less 'crimes'.

LSE 's New Middle East Centre eradicates Israel

In recent years the prestigious LSE (London School of Economics) has seen an increasing number of anti-Israel incidents, including an occupation of the Old Theatre in 2009 that was ended only after the School's craven capitulation to the demands of the anti-Israel extremists. Only last week the LSE hosted rabid hate merchant Abdul Bari Atwan, which is especially ironic since last year it banned the brilliant Douglas Murray, on 'security grounds' simply because he was prepared to speak in defence of Israel.

It still comes as a great shock, however, that the LSE has inaugurated a new Middle East Centre, funded by £9.2 million from the United Arab Emirates, which appears to not recognise the state of Israel. In the map accompanying the article (see left) about the new Centre in the latest copy of the LSE Connect Magazine, Israel - and all of its cities - has been completely eradicated. It certainly cannot be for reasons of space since Gaza, Lebanon and Beirut are all clearly marked in the space where Israel should be.

It is difficult to understand why an outstanding scholarly institute like the LSE would wish to be associated with a Centre like this. But clearly the LSE is taking money from wealthy Arab regimes to further delegitimize the only true democracy in the Middle East and promote the cause of Islamic fundamentalism.

See important update to this post (15 January 2011)

Israeli tragedy: Arabs rejoice, rest of world yawns

By any measure the tragedy that occured in Israel today, with fires engulfing the North and a busload of cadets killed in a fireball (40 dead) while on their way to help evacuate inmates of a prison, was a major international news story especially as the disaster is ongoing. 40 dead Israelis is equivalent in relative population terms to 2400 Amercians - similar to the number killed on 9/11. The fact that there are claims this may have been a terrorist act (see e.g. here, here and here) compound the importance of the story.

But, as usual, dead Israelis elicit a very different response compared to victims from any other country.

• The West ignores it (not a single mention on the main bulletins tonight on Sky News or even Fox News - not even on the ticker-tape).
• The Arabs rejoice in it. So it is a major story on Al Jazeera while Arabs in Israel are actually celebrating.

Whether or not this was a natural disaster or a terrorist act is not the issue. It is the world reaction to it, which will be no different no matter the scale of disaster that hits Israel. Which is exactly what Ahmedinejad, Hamas and Hezbollah understand very well.

Update, 5 Dec: Three days on and the story failed to get a single mention in the UK's most popular newspapers (the Sun and the News of the World). Althought the story got a very brief mention on some of the UK TV news programmes, there was no mention of the special tragedy of the young firefighters in the bus and of course no mention of the further blood curdling Arab rejoicing and gloating over burnt Israeli bodies (and these were all young people going to help evacuate Palestinian TERRORISTS).

The day that world football died

So, in its quest for outreach and multiculturalism FIFA (one of the world's most corrupt organisations) has awarded the 2022 World Cup to one of the most anti-Semitic, corrupt nations in the world - Qatar. As proof of how surreal a decision this was it even led to the first ever statement made by Obama that I agreed with (he said simply that “FIFA made a mistake”, but no doubt if the USA had not been one of the other bidders he would have been cheering another instance of ‘Muslim outreach’). This story is also well covered here.

Anyway, I've just sent the following self-explanatory letter to the FIFA President:


Dear Mr Blatter

If FIFA is prepared to countenance the idea that the World Cup could be awarded to a country that has never qualified for the world cup (nor any record of footballing achievement), no prospects for football development, no suitable football stadiums nor even football supporters, then we can certainly at least expect any such a country to be one which abides by laws of basic human decency. For example, one which allows entry to visitors irrespective of race or nationality. And we certainly would expect such a country to be free from institutional racism, homophobia and sexism. Since the World Cup is the greatest sporting celebration on earth, it would also surely be expected that in such a country alcohol would not be banned, and it would help if it was physically possible to be outside in such a country in the summer for more than 5 minutes without suffering sunstroke in temperatures guaranteed to be above 45 degrees centigrade. And we would certainly expect such a country NOT to be the major financier of Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organisations.

Indeed, the latest version of FIFA statutes document states prominently (in its own section, page 7):

• Discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or group of people on account of ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, politics or any other reason is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion.

Can you please therefore explain the rationale for awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar - a country which not only breaches FIFA’s statutes, but which somehow fails to satisfy a single one of the above-mentioned very modest criteria of basic respectability. Qatar, the country:

• that does not allow entry to nationals from another of FIFA’s own countries, Israel. In fact, not only does it not allow entry to Israeli nationals, nor does it allow entry to nationals of any country who have their passport stamped from a visit to Israel.
• where homosexuality is punishable by death and where even an American citizen was sentenced to six months imprisonment and 90 lashes for homosexual activity.
• which, through its international Al Jazeera propaganda news network, is the world’s major exporter of anti-semitism and anti—Western jihadism.
• which through its newspapers and TV programmes, that are exported to the Muslim world, not only perpetuate consistent holocaust-denial but provide continually novel anti-Semitism. Indeed, a country which, despite being considered by the USA as an ‘ally’ was identified by the White House in 2003 as being a persistent and unacceptable source of vicious anti-Semitism .
• which hosts ‘the world’s leading Islamic Sunni scholar’ Yusuf al-Qaradawi who, apart from his open hatred of fellow Shiite Muslims, is best known for issuing the fatwas that a) formally allowed Islamic suicide bombers to target women and children and b) formally allowed women not only to become suicide bombers but also to wear western clothing in the act of their suicide bombing in order to deceive their victims (in fact this is the sum total of his contribution to advancing the rights of women in Islam).
• where even taking photographs of ‘local people’ is illegal.

Given FIFA’s statutes stated above, I know that Qatar’s discrimination against Israeli and Jews are especially problematic for you (and I know this because I have seen some of the documentation of the bid). For the first time in World Cup history there will be a host country that does not allow entry to nationals from another of FIFA’s own countries, Israel. I understand that the Qataris have explicitly assured FIFA that they will allow entry to Israelis for ‘the duration of the tournament’. I have even heard that FIFA regards this as an indication of its own “positive influence” ; but that is a bit like saying it would have been a good thing to award the Olympic Games to Nazi Germany in 1936 if the Nazis agreed to postpone their pograms against the Jews for the duration of the tournament... Oh wait a minute ... that is exactly what did happen (so it seems the ethical choices of international sports committees have not changed much over the years).

I understand that the Qataris have also assured FIFA members by noting that Israeli sports participants have previously been allowed into the country and that they have even hosted Israeli trade delegations. What they would not have told you is how exceptional these events were and how bitterly they were received by the country’s small but indoctrinated population. The fact that Qatar has refused to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, and will not do so by 2022, is all that you really need to know.

What is certain is that many football supporters who would love to attend the 2022 World Cup – homosexuals, Jews, women, Israelis, or just supporters who also like to drink beer or take photographs – will effectively be denied the opportunity to attend.

If it is not too late for FIFA to reconsider its decision then you simply must do so.

If it is then today was the day that world football died. In either case I would like some explanation of your decision.

Update 2014: 14 reasons why the Qatar World Cup will be a disaster

UK is going mad

The way the media has handled the case of Labour MP Phil Woolas being kicked out as an MP for 'lying during the election campaign' confirms that there is now complete self-censorship when it comes to stories with an Islamist angle. From the news reports I first saw and read I actually had no idea that the case had anything to do with Islam. But it turns out it centred on Woolas accusing his LibDem opponent of pandering to Islamic fundamentalists. From what I have read since, Woolas's claim seems pretty reasonable - let's face it a LibDem candidate pandering to Islamists seem pretty much like a tautology - and in this case there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to back it up. But even if it was completely false, that would still make him no more guilty than 99% of all other MPs when you consider the lies they tell during an election campaign. Yet here we have the incredible step of the courts intervening and throwing an MP out of Parliament. With any criticism of Islam now deemed a 'hate crime' we are moving to a situation where the media is simply censoring any mention of Islam or Muslims if that casts them in a negative light. This presumably explains why the entire UK media was almost completely silent last week on:

• the massacre by Muslims of 58 Christians in a Church in Baghdad (take a look at the pictures here)
• the 113 Shia Muslims who were slaughtered by Sunni Muslims the next day in Baghdad
• the continued mass slaughter of Muslim worhippers by more devout Muslim worshippers taking place on a daily basisin Pakistan.
• the other UPS cargo bomb plot which actually succeeded - Al Quaeda always did claim that they bombed the UPS cargo plane that crashed in Dubai in September and this now seems certain, yet the UK media is censoring this story while talking endlessly about the failed plot.

It also explains why the media continues to downplay the role of Islamism in so many other stories. For example, it was only because of the guilty verdict and the words of the defendant herself that the British public were allowed to find out that Islamism was the reason why Roshonara Choudhry tried to kill her MP.

What is especially worrying for British Jews - apart from the rapidly escalating hatred being whipped up against Israel from every angle now - is that its own newpapers have increasingly bought into the same main stream "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and "Israel is the root of all problems" narrative. I've reported many times on the Jewish Chronicle's disgraceful decline in this respect, but now even the Jewish News appears to have succumbed. So this week's single Opinion piece titled "The unravelling of Rabin's legacy" places the entire blame for lack of Middle East Peace on "right wing settlers", while its Letters page leads with a full column letter titled "Israel has earned apartheid analogy" which contains such gems as "Israel seems determined to avoid having foreign journalists and courts examine its war efforts in detail, including many illustrated crimes such as phosphorous bombs, physical violence, internal sanctions and blockades". The Jewish Chronicle is now a complete joke; this week its bizarre leading story headlined "Hague offers Israel hand of friendship" (about William Hague's visit to Israel) tried to spin a viewpoint that is contradicted by every other source (see, e.g here and here). The JC actually avoids telling readers that a) Hague made a point of visiting - and expressing support for - the violent anti-Israel demonstrators who protest weekly against Israel's security barrier; and b) Hague made it pretty clear that he is not going to do anything to change the law on use of universal jurisdiction (and hence Israeli politicians will continue to be stopped from coming to the UK). But - wait a minute - didn't Hague and many other Tories promise during the election campaign that they would change this law as soon as they got into power? So why aren't they - like Phil Woolas being thrown out of Parliament?

And finally, here is a frightening story from Jerusalem of how our Arab friends would routinely kill every Jew they find if given the opportunity. Bet this story won't make it into next week's JC.

When it comes to the Middle East. why does the 'quality' media ignore quality writers?

In responding to a typically ignorant attack on her by a prominent writer, pro-Israel, anti-Jihadist blogger Pamela Geller says:

• "Who gives these people jobs? Who put these people in positions of influence? We are thirsting, and they're giving us seawater to drink."

Every time I see an article, a news item, or a documentary about the Jihad threat or about Middle East politics this is the question I ask about the writer/presenter. And I'm not just talking about the leftist bigots. Last week's (London) Times on Saturday, for example - the so-called creme de la creme of high-brow reporting - had a massive article dominating its world news section about the Middle East peace talks. The entire article (and headline) blamed Israel's decision to re-start building in Jerusalem (wrongly called "the West Bank") for the breakdown in talks. What was pathetic about the article was not so much its bias (which has been a feature of the Times for several years now) but the sheer ignorance and laziness of the writer. It would not have been hard, for example, to find out and mention the crucial role of the PA in refusing Netanyahu's request to recognise Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for a continued freeze on building, or to mention the clumsy role of Obama in unnecessarily making the building issue so prominent when even the Palestinians had never previously made it a condition for talks. But the writer simply did not bother. Instead the writer simply parroted out the standard Palestinian narrative without any attempt to check the facts. The writer also repeated the libel about the the 'settler' who 'ran over Palestinian children' as being a factor in the breakdown of talks, ignoring the fact that this had been comprehensively debunked with video evidence over a week before.

I'm increasingly coming to the opinion that most writers in the main stream media are not necessarily inherantly biased against Israel. They are simply ignorant, and above all lazy. They simply repeat what other 'writers' in the main stream media are saying and so it just becomes a self-perpetuating torrent of anti-Israel narrative. The tragedy is that these totally useless writers have all the key positions in the main stream media, while truly talented writers are marginalised in the blogosphere. Why. for example, are writers like Michael Totten (who really researches and understands the middle east), Daniel Greenfield (Sultan Knish, who is able to provide deep analysis) and Barry Rubin (who has access to a wide range of inside experts), not given the opportunity to be seen in the main stream media, while truly lazy and ignorant ones dominate it?

Israelis who seek to deligitimize and destroy Israel

I've written several times before about Israeli academics who spend their lives attempting to deligitimize and destroy Israel.

Prominent among these in the UK are Avi Shlaim (Oxford) and Ilan Pappe (Exeter). Although their revisionist work has been widely discredited by genuine experts, they continue to be idolised by leftists and all anti-Zionists. Moroever, because they are keen to emphasize their "Israeli" backgrounds the main stream media often uses them, bizarrely, to "put the Israeli viewpoint" across in a debate (this gives you a feel of just how ignorant/biased the producers/editors are). This explains why you often see a "debate" involving an Arab and an "Israeli" in which the only actual disagreement is about whether Israel is a Nazi state or a fascist state.

Typically, Avi Shlaim is in the news today for playing a prominent role in the scandalous decision to 'disinvite' Jewish academic Professor Geoffrey Alderman from a panel debate at Queens University Belfast about ‘Conflict in the Middle East’. Heaven fordbid that an academic on the panel would not be a Hamas supporter.

But, more concerning to me, is the following example: A few weeks ago I came across a children's textbook in our local library, which I think was called "The Arab Israeli Conflict" (I think it is this one by Debra Miller). Flicking through it was clear that the book provided (exclusively) the Palestinian narrative in which, for example, the only 'terrorists' in the history of the conflict were Jews at Deir Yassin etc. When I looked at the back cover I discovered that the "Israeli consultant" on the book was none other than Avi Shlaim. It may well be that the author was a perfectly reasonable person who felt that by getting Shlaim's input she was getting a 'balance' against the "Arab consultant". The effect was that a standard textbook for 12-15 year-olds is indoctrinating a new generation to believe that Israel - and only Israel - is the root of all evil in the Middle East.

It would be nice if the likes of Shlaim and Pappe could simply be just laughed at or, even better, ignored. In many ways the publicity about Shlaim's role in the Belfast panel fiasco makes it more likely for him to be laughed at. But while this enables a handful of Israel supporters who follow the story to take the moral high ground, it is nothing compared to the real damage he continues to reap on thousands of school children (not to mention his students at Oxford and everybody else fed the lie that he somehow represents Israeli opinion).

p.s. How about this for another example: while searching on Amazon for the above book I was presented - by Amazon - with a list called "The best books about the Middle East" - you can see the list and the heading here. And guess which books are numbers 1 and 2 on this list? The first is by Avi Shlaim (The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World) and the second is by Ilan Pappe (A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples). For good measure the rest of the list is filled almost entirely with anti-Israel writers too (Edward Said, Robert Fisk, David Hirst, Greg Philo, Charles Smith and two by Baruch Kimmerling). The 'exception' is Benny Morris, but the book listed is one written before he rejected his (until then) revisionist views.

Who is going to defend Pamela Geller from defamatory claims - not defamed Melanie Phillips

Bear with me for a minute as this is a little complicated (about an article refering to another article referring to a third article) but this is important.

Melanie Phllips has posted an interesting article here.

In it she praises an article at Harry's Place written by "Alan A" .

The Harry's Place article defends Melanie against the inference that she is as an anti-Muslim bigot that was made in an article about her (at Left Foot Forward) titled "Melanie Phillips is inspiration behind Tea Party anti-Muslim leader" (the "anti-Muslim leader" referred to is Pamela Geller).

Melanie's own article praises the Harry's Place article for defending her. However, there is a very strong irony about what Melanie has written, in that she is praising an article which actually defames Pamela Geller in the same way (only more openly and viciously) than the original article defamed both Melanie and Pamela. In fact Alan A states that Pamela Geller is a "lunatic bigot".

So:

• The first article infers (rather than states openly) that both Melanie and Pamela are anti-Muslim bigots, without offering a shred of evidence against either.
• The second article claims Melanie is not an anti-Muslim bigot but states openly that Pamela is an anti-Muslim bigot, without offering a shred of evidence against her.
• The third article (Melanie's) praises the second article for coming to her defence, while ignoring the fact that the second article had made a far more openly offensive claim.

So who is going to defend Pamela Geller against the cumulative claims against her? The irony, sadly, is that it is not going to be Melanie Phillips.

The problem is that the stock response of any 'liberal' to people who are prepared to stand up to the threat of Islamism (as opposed to Muslims) is that they are 'bigots' or 'racists'. Just as there is no evidence that Melanie is a bigot or racist, nor is there any evidence that Pamela Geller is. In fact, the demonising of Pamela Geller by the main stream media is no different from its demonising of Israel. It all boils down to a combination of anti-semitism and dhimittude.

The other irony about Alan A's article on Harry's Place is that it begins with the words "I expect that Left Foot Forward will get into trouble for this [referring to the original] article." So the entire thrust of Alan A's article is that even implying that somebody is an anti-Muslim bigot without providing evidence is a serious offense. Yet, his own article explicitly calls somebody a lunatic bigot without providing evidence. You just could not make this stuff up.

Update 30 June 2013: This (old) post has been getting a lot of hits because of the fall out from the Geller/Spencer UK ban and Melani Phillips response. Please also see latest update on that ban here.

Another media scandal

So we now have another classic example of the Media's insatiable obsession to find any tiny negative story about Israel and explode it into an international incident.

Every TV news channel (and all the major newspapers) has been running the story of an "Israeli West Bank settler running over Palestinian children". Even the one news channel that is supposed to be "not hostile" to Israel - Fox News - went big on this one presenting it as an outrage. But take a look here for the full video which as far as I know no western TV channel has screened.


The full video speaks for itself and the question that needs to be asked is why would editorial staff in the UK and the USA not use the full version rather than a version which so clearly presents a lie? I've been racking my brains over that one and can only come up with the answer: anti-semitism. And incidentally this was not in the "West Bank" as every news outlet reported. It was in East Jerusalem (Silwan) where the dispute is about properties that have not only been bought legally but were actually were owned by Jews before the Jordanian occupation of 1948-67. Even the notoriously left-wing Israel judiciary accepts that.

Update: It seems that youtube has censored the above full video - you can now only watch it if you are registered as over 18. Elder of Ziyon has more on the original story and an update on further attacks against Jewish drivers in Silwan.

Gerald Kaufman loves Hamas

The Jewish Chronicle, which as I have been saying for a while is increasingly aligning itself with those who are hostile to Israel, carried a sympathetic article last week about Gerald Kaufman being "verbally assaulted" by two members of his synagogue on Yom Kippur.

Now we find out in this must read Harrys Place article that the depth of Kaufman's depravity in cosying up to Hamas is much greater than we had feared. What's the betting the Jewish Chronicle gives rather less prominence to this story about their friend Kaufman?

Could it get any worse?

With the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats competing among themselves for the claim to be the most virulently anti-Israel party, we can now add the Labour Party. Its new leader, Ed Milliband - a classic "as a Jew" in name only - has firmly laid his cards on the table. Look which organisation he chose for his very first speech as Party Leader.

But it is not really a surprise when you consider that his mother is a prominent member of 'Jews for Justice for Palestinians' and is backing the anti-Israel boatload of 'Jews' on their way to support Hamas in Gaza.

How 9/11 would be reported today

On a previous anniversary of 9/11 I wrote an article about how that day’s events might have been reported by the BBC, CNN or the Guardian if they used the same approach as they used to reporting terrorist attacks against Israel. Considering how the main stream media in the USA has presented stories about Islamic terrorism against the USA since 9/11 (e.g. the Fort Hood massacre, the undiebomber, the Beltway sniper killings) by trying to cover up the Islamic angle, I think it is now the case that this is not much different to how the 9/11 story would actually be presented by the main stream media in the USA today:

Headline to story: “Thousands of Arabs and Americans killed in day of tit-for-tat violence on east coast of America”

The cycle of violence in America reached a new crescendo today when a series of violent incidents left thousands dead. The dead are believed to include many Arab civilians and a number of American military personnel. Al Jaziera has revealed that many of the Arabs killed were refugee children who had fled from oppression. Although an American spokesman claimed that they too suffered “many civilian deaths”, this has been denied by the Al Quaeda organisation.

The violence started when a member of a group of five unarmed Arab civilians, who boarded a 767 aircraft in Boston, was refused permission to fly the plane, despite having a valid flying licence. The American authorities have been imposing increasingly tight restrictions on the freedom of movement of Arab civilians within the US. This humiliation to their dignity has created, not unsurprisingly, deep anger and resentment among even moderate Arabs. When the fully qualified pilot was denied the opportunity to work in his chosen profession, he became angry. It is reported that the outnumbered Arab men engaged in fighting with members of the crew, but what really happened next may never be known. What is certain is that all of the five Arabs were killed, along with the plane’s other occupants (believed to be primarily military and intelligence personnel) when the plane crashed into the North tower of the World Trade Center. Al Jaziera quickly confirmed that the building housed many Arab refugee children, who were all killed in the attack along with a number of Muslim workers. A number of illegal American immigrants dressed as businessmen may also have perished.

As news of the Arab civilian deaths became known, it is believed that Arab civilians on another aircraft reacted with understandable passion, battling with military and security personnel. This plane soon crashed into the south tower of the Word trade center. After this second crash the US military ordered an unprecedented grounding of all civilian flights over US airspace, thus denying all Arabs living in the US the right to travel. On hearing news of this attack on their livelihood a group of Arab militants mounted a daring tit-for-tat strike. With nothing else to lose, and in sheer desperation, the militants crashed the plane they were travelling in into the very heart of the US military machine – the Pentagon, killing scores of soldiers. In an escalation of the violence the US military responded by threatening to shoot down any airplane still flying that was piloted by Arabs. This led to the final, and most outrageous act of violence of the day, committed by a group of self-styled American vigilantes aboard flight 93 to San Francisco. On learning that their airplane was being flown by Arab pilots, the Americans took it upon themselves to massacre all the Arabs on board. In the ensuing struggle the Arab pilot was savagely killed and the plane crashed into a field, killing all the occupants, many of whom are believed to have been Arab refugee children. The US military is likely to have to accept full responsibility for the final massacre, since they had given messages to the passengers on board flight 93 that the Arab pilots were planning to crash the plane into the White House, even though no proof of such a wild claim had been presented to the United Nations. The French and German leaders have already demanded a UN enquiry into the massacre.