The most effective way to vilify Israel with progressive people is by accusing her of racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and so on. All of these accusations have to be somewhat creative because none of these characteristics actually apply to Israel in anything like their normal senses (indeed, Israel is one of the least racist societies around).
It’s worth pointing out, though, that they do apply quite well to Palestinians and other Arabs.
When the political leadership constantly stresses the need to strengthen “the moderate factions” among the Palestinians, who is it actually referring to? Who is it recommending should be allowed to control the hills overlooking Ben Gurion Airport, to deploy along the length of Highway 6 (the trans-Israel motorway), to take over vital water sources east of the coastal plain and the approaches to the “strategic installations” around Ashkelon? Those who wish to destroy Israel in the name of Islam; or those who wish to do so in the name of a more secular rationale? — Martin Sherman, YNet
Former Meretz leader Yossi Sarid told the Egyptian daily al-Ahram that the execution of Egyptian captives by Israeli soldiers at the end of the Six Day War in 1967 was a war crime.
Israel ‘s Channel One television aired a documentary earlier this week in which it was claimed that an elite Israeli army unit commanded by Labor MK Benyamin Ben-Eliezer executed 250 unarmed Egyptian soldiers. — YNet
Ben-Eliezer has said that the incident actually was a battle in which 250 Palestinian Fedayeen were killed. However, elements in Egypt are demanding an investigation.
What I want to know is this: what is the cause of this perverse urge to self-criticism, that makes Jews the worst anti-Jewish propagandists?
Why are there always Israeli documentaries alleging Israeli wickedness? Why are people like Sarid always ready to say the worst possible things to the worst possible audiences?
Before he even knows what the Egyptians are talking about, he knows Israel is guilty: “Sarid told the paper he had not seen the documentary, but that he was aware that Israeli forces had committed such acts [JPost]”!
What did he think would be the result of his remarks?
For that matter, why did Israeli historian Ariel Toaff write a book that alleges, on the worst possible evidence, that maybe it’s possible that Jews really did kill Christians and use their blood for matzohs? What did he think would happen?
Perhaps Sarid, Toaff, and other similar neurotics are suicidal, but many would prefer that they don’t take the State of Israel and the Jewish people with them.
Update [6 Mar 2007 1657 PST]: CAMERA: False Massacre Story Resurrected
Update [7 Mar 2007 2225 PST]: See Naomi Leitner’s account of the real story of Shaked.
Technorati Tags: Sarid, Egyptian POWs, Toaff
March 5 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. and its European allies have agreed with China and Russia to give Iran another 60-day deadline to halt uranium enrichment activities, Chinese and Russia envoys said after their first meeting on a new draft resolution…
The Dec. 23 resolution set a 60-day deadline for Iran to halt enrichment activities while imposing an asset freeze on 12 named individuals and 11 groups such as the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, and barring the government in Tehran from acquiring materials or technology that might be used to build nuclear weapons.
The UN’s nuclear watchdog agency reported on Feb. 22 that Iran plans to install 3,000 centrifuges designed to produce nuclear fuel at its underground facility in Natanz, 150 miles (240 kilometers) south of Tehran, by May.
So, have I got this straight? In December, the UN gave them 60 days and applied mild sanctions. Time’s up, enrichment continues, and new plans are made to expand nuclear programs. In response, they get another two months, to really stop this time.
Is military action by the US or Israel likely? Given the scale of the operation that would be required, the fact that the best result that could be hoped for would be a delay in the program, and the many ways in which Iran could retaliate (for all this, see the Oxford Research Group’s report), I think the answer is no.
Technorati Tags: Iran
A majority of people believe that Israel and Iran have a mainly negative influence in the world, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.
It shows that the two countries are closely followed by the United States and North Korea.
The poll asked 28,000 in 27 countries to rate a dozen countries plus the European Union in terms of whether they have a positive or negative influence.
Canada, Japan and the EU are viewed most positively in the survey.
What is really incredible about this is that Israel probably has less direct effect on the people in those 27 countries than any of the others. The policy of the United States, whether or not you approve of it, is quite likely to have great effect on the world. And one can understand how regimes that threaten to use nuclear weapons, as Iran and North Korea have, would generate a lot of strong feeling.
But if Israel were to disappear, or alternatively to build 100 new settlements in the territories, the effect on 99 percent of the world’s population would be exactly — nothing.
The BBC piece mentions the ‘controversial’ war in Lebanon. But even the most exaggerated estimates of the total death toll on both sides in this war don’t exceed 1,500. Contrast this with the ongoing conflict in Chechnya, which began in 1999 and where at least 10,000 have been killed in the last 4 years. And this is just one of many ongoing wars.
The BBC mentions that Muslims are particularly anti-Israel. Indeed, but most of the dead in Chechnya are Muslims, including plenty of civilians.
Maybe the explanation lies in the fact that the people they polled were BBC listeners!
