Diana Buttu, "Why the Palestinian Authority Should Be Shuttered": A Call to Rehabilitate Hamas

Tweet

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

- Winston Churchill

The New York Times today published an op-ed entitled "Why the Palestinian Authority Should Be Shuttered" by Diana Buttu, who asserted in a 2012 Harvard lecture that Qassam rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli civilians "don't have explosive heads" (yeah, right). She also claimed at that same lecture that "between the period of 1997 until the year 2000, there wasn't a single Israeli who died of a suicide bombing inside Israel," yet, when confronted with the 1997 Café Apropo bombing, Butto resorted to another lie: "All of the people you are talking about were settlers." In fact, one of the women was from Tel Aviv, one from Herzliya, and one from Neve Monosson. (To learn more about Butto's prevarication at the Harvard lecture, have a gander at CAMERA's article "Diana Buttu is at it Again, Harvard Edition.") But back now to Butto's op-ed, which is no less "imaginative" than her Harvard talk. Butto begins by questioning "whether the Palestinian Authority plays any positive role or is simply a tool of control for Israel and the international community," and declares that "it’s time for the authority to go." Buttu continues:

"[Palestinian Authority] security forces do not provide a normal police service to Palestinians, but instead aid the Israeli Army in maintaining the occupation and Israel’s ever-expanding settlements.

. . . .

The raison d’être of the Palestinian Authority today is not to liberate Palestine; it is to keep Palestinians silent and quash dissent while Israel steals land, demolishes Palestinian homes, and builds and expands settlements."

Ah yes, the "ever-expanding" settlements. However, as observed in a December 29, 2016 Washington Post editorial entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started" (my emphasis in red):

"In fact, the two-state solution remains entirely viable, as even the settlement statistics cited by Mr. Kerry demonstrate. The administration asserts that the Jewish population in the West Bank has increased by 100,000 since 2009 — but by Mr. Kerry’s account, 80 percent of that growth was in areas Israel would likely annex in any settlement. In eight years, 20,000 people have been added to communities in territory likely to become part of Palestine — an area where 2.75 million Arabs now live. That growth of about 3 percent per annum, the product of a restraint for which Mr. Netanyahu received no White House credit, means that the Jewish population outside Israel’s West Bank fence may have decreased as a percentage of the overall population even as Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have made it the focal point of U.S. policy."

Similarly, Rick Richman wrote in a December 28, 2016 Commentary article entitled "It’s Not the Settlements, Stupid":

"The figure of 100,000 sounds significant until you realize that 80 percent of it has been in the settlement blocs 'everyone knows' Israel will retain in any conceivable peace agreement. The 20,000 person increase east of the separation barrier, established to stop the wave of Palestinian mass murders against Israelis, translates into less than one percent of the population in the disputed territories, over a period of eight years."

Buttu also fails to take into account what was acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank. Additionally, she does not make mention of past Israeli evacuations of Sinai and Gaza, other than to assert that Israel maintains "overall control" of the Gaza Strip. Needless to say, Buttu avoids mention of Israel's evacuation of Gaza in 2005 and fails to observe that Gaza shares a border with Egypt.

And then there is the "small matter" of Hamas. Buttu writes:

"To remove this noose that has been choking Palestinians, the authority must be replaced with the sort of community-based decision making that predated the body’s establishment. And we must reform our main political body, the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Mr. Abbas also heads, to make it more representative of the Palestinian people and their political parties, including Hamas. Hamas has long indicated that it wants to be part of the P.L.O., and its revised charter, recently released in Doha, Qatar, affirms this aspiration."

Ah yes, the "new" Hamas, whose 2017 charter reads in relevant part:

14. The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.

15. The Zionist project does not target the Palestinian people alone; it is the enemy of the Arab and Islamic Ummah posing a grave threat to its security and interests. It is also hostile to the Ummah’s aspirations for unity, renaissance and liberation and has been the major source of its troubles. The Zionist project also poses a danger to international security and peace and to mankind and its interests and stability.

. . . .

19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.

20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Rehabilitate Hamas, which earlier this week executed three men accused of killing one of its senior commanders - the executions were partially streamed live via Facebook? I don't think so.

New York Times Editorial, "Donald Trump’s Answer to Anti-Semitism? You Don’t Want to Know": Look Who's Talking!

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Donald Trump’s Answer to Anti-Semitism? You Don’t Want to Know," The New York Times derides President Trump's response at a news conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a question concerning "the rise of anti-Semitic incidents in the United States." The Times would have us know:

"For a normal American politician, the moment offered a perfect opportunity for a home run. Condemn the behavior and make a sincere pledge to do everything possible to stop it. There is no question that hate crimes and malicious speech have accelerated since the presidential campaign, with Jews among the prime targets. The Anti-Defamation League says anti-Semitic talk in the United States has reached levels unseen since the 1930s. And there have been bomb threats against Jewish centers across the country."

Got it: The Trump presidential campaign is to blame for the heightened level of anti-Semitic talk in the US, and the Times is innocent of any involvement in the reawakening this horrifying phenomenon. Rubbish!

As Dr. Phyllis Chesler wrote in a July 2014 article entitled "Incitement to Genocide: How NY Times' Coverage and UN Complicity Breed Anti-Semitism":

"The twenty-first century coverage of Israel and Zionism in the paper of record far exceeds its twentieth century pattern of mere dismissal. In the last fourteen years—in the last year-- in article after article, photograph after photograph, and especially when Israel has been under attack, this paper has systematically put forth an Islamist and pro-Hamas agenda with malice aforethought. If not 'malice,' then the level of willful journalistic ignorance and blindness is hard to believe."

New York Times double standards involving Israel? As observed by CAMERA in 2014:

"We found that 6 out of 7 NYT editorials addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict were negative toward Israel, while none were positive. Opinion columns by NYT staff followed the same pattern of condemning Israel: 5 out of 6 were negative toward Israel, while none were positive. As for invited Op-Eds on the topic, 15 out of 20 were negative toward Israel, while only one was positive."

You might also want to have another look at Ron Dermer's December 2011 letter to The New York Times, denouncing perpetual criticism of Israel by the Times:

"I discovered that during the last three months (September through November) you published 20 op-eds about Israel in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune. After dividing the op-eds into two categories, 'positive' and 'negative,' with 'negative' meaning an attack against the State of Israel or the policies of its democratically elected government, I found that 19 out of 20 columns were 'negative.'"

More evidence of anti-Semitism at the Times? Perhaps you recall New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's declaration:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Then there was Roger Cohen's New York Times op-ed "Obama in Netanyahu's Web," whose title was painfully in keeping with the anti-Semitic tradition of depicting Jews as voracious spiders. As Andrew Rosenthal, who was then editorial page editor of the Times, later acknowledged to me, this "was not a good headline."

In addition, let's not forget the retweet of a message by Nicholas Kristof, referring to AIPAC as one of "the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies" (see: "Nicholas Kristof Retweets "OBAMA Told the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies, AIPAC & NRA, to Drop Dead in Same Month": Is Kristof an Anti-Semite?"). We never received an explanation concerning this abomination from Nick, who soon thereafter took book-writing leave from the Times. Nicholas Kristof and anti-Semitism? You might want to have at look at my article entitled "Nicholas Kristof, Israel, and Double Standards" in The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism.

In this regard, the US Department of State writes (my emphasis in red):

EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:

DEMONIZE ISRAEL:

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis
  
  
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
  
  
• Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions

And as noted today, in an Algemeiner article entitled "New York Times Uses Antisemitic Imagery to Describe Israeli Academy" by Ira Stoll:

"The New York Times has an article about Beit El, a West Bank settlement that has been supported by David Friedman, who is President Trump’s nominee to be ambassador to Israel.

'The yeshiva complex is a multitentacled enterprise,' the Times reports.

Tentacles? When the National Rifle Association’s magazine depicted Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York on its cover as an octopus, the Times described it in a headline as 'an Anti-Semitic Symbol,' noting, accurately, that “the image has been used in anti-Semitic propaganda, from the Nazis to the modern Arab world.” Now it is the Times portraying religious Jews in Israel using the same negative imagery."

Finally, let's also not forget the persistent willingness of New York Times "moderators" to permit the publication of vulgar expressions of anti-Semitism (see: "Why Is Antisemitism Permitted in Online Comments "Moderated" by The Times? Open Letter No. 2 to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times").

Bottom line: Left-wing anti-Semitism is no better than right-wing anti-Semitism, and the Times indeed helped lay the groundwork for the current groundswell of anti-Semitism in America.

Is The New York Times Anti-Semitic? Absolutely!

In a blog entry earlier this month, I examined a New York Times editorial entitled "Anti-Semitism in the Soccer Stands," condemning anti-Semitic conduct by fans and players during European football matches. After providing evidence of anti-Semitism that has found its way onto the pages of the Times in recent years, I concluded:

"I would suggest to the editorial board of the Times that anti-Semitism in the United States, particularly its 'highbrow' form in the media, can be just as sinister as the baser strains of this disease which exist in the Middle East and Europe. Moreover, American anti-Semitism is far 'closer to home' than the editorial board would care to believe."

We now have more evidence of this despicable tendency of the Times. As reported by The Algemeiner in an article entitled "New York Times Again Blasted for ‘Skewed’ Headline in Coverage of Palestinian Stabbing Attacks":

"Media watchdogs and Jewish groups on Sunday admonished the New York Times for publishing a headline about Palestinian stabbing attacks in Israel which “blur Palestinian culpability” in the incidents.

The 'skewed' headline, 'Israeli Police Officers Kill Two Palestinian Men,' appeared in Sunday’s edition of the prominent newspaper and detailed in the opening paragraph that the two 'Palestinian men were fatally shot by the Israeli police after attacking officers with knives.'

. . . .

In an email to the Algemeiner, one reader alleged that in Sunday’s issue of the Times, another article that appears in print confirms an anti-Israel bias on the part of the “paper of record.”

'Even more interesting is another title in the same edition of the New York Times on an unrelated article: ‘Man, 24, killed by Detective in struggle during arrest’,' said New York native Noam Ohana. 'So, in the New York case we are given a bit of context (there was a struggle) but when a Palestinian tries to butcher police officers/soldiers with a knife it apparently does not require any contextualization in the title.'"

According to the US State Department (my emphasis in red):

"What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?

EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:

DEMONIZE ISRAEL:
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
• Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions
DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ISRAEL:
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation"

Yes, The New York Times is anti-Semitic.

David Brooks, "The Mental Virtues": What About Anti-Semitism at The New York Times?

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "The Mental Virtues," David Brooks asks, "Is it possible to display and cultivate character if you are just an information age office jockey, alone with a memo or your computer?" Brooks's answer:

"Thinking well under a barrage of information may be a different sort of moral challenge than fighting well under a hail of bullets, but it’s a character challenge nonetheless."

Brooks next claims that we can "grade ourselves" on the "cerebral values" listed by a book entitled "Intellectual Virtues" by Robert C. Roberts of Baylor University and W. Jay Wood of Wheaton College. The values:

• love of learning
• courage
• firmness
• humility
• autonomy
• generosity

Brooks's conclusion:

"Character tests are pervasive even in modern everyday life. It’s possible to be heroic if you’re just sitting alone in your office. It just doesn’t make for a good movie."

Great news! I just can't wait to receive my virtual Congressional Medal of Honor in an email from Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama.

Meanwhile, wouldn't it be wonderful if even one op-ed writer at The New York Times would have the guts to confront the issue of anti-Semitism at The New York Times? As Dr. Phyllis Chesler recently wrote in an article entitled "Incitement to Genocide: How NY Times' Coverage and UN Complicity Breed Anti-Semitism":

"The twenty-first century coverage of Israel and Zionism in the paper of record far exceeds its twentieth century pattern of mere dismissal. In the last fourteen years—in the last year-- in article after article, photograph after photograph, and especially when Israel has been under attack, this paper has systematically put forth an Islamist and pro-Hamas agenda with malice aforethought. If not 'malice,' then the level of willful journalistic ignorance and blindness is hard to believe."

New York Times double standards involving Israel? As recently observed by CAMERA:

"We found that 6 out of 7 NYT editorials addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict were negative toward Israel, while none were positive. Opinion columns by NYT staff followed the same pattern of condemning Israel: 5 out of 6 were negative toward Israel, while none were positive. As for invited Op-Eds on the topic, 15 out of 20 were negative toward Israel, while only one was positive."

More evidence of outrageous anti-Semitism at the Times? Have a look at "Roger Cohen, "A Jew Not Quite English Enough": What About Anti-Semitism at The New York Times?"

Mr. Brooks, I don't give a damn about any laundry list of "cerebral qualities" evidencing heroism. I'm merely waiting for you or any other Times writer to confront your newspaper with its incitement against Israel, which sparks racial hatred.

That would take courage.

Roger Cohen, "Hope in the Abattoir": Where Is Cohen's Apology?

Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen has no credibility. He also has no journalistic integrity.

As recently reported by The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=2764):

"Days after a New York Times editorial completely distorted a Hebrew poem cited by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – the Chaim Nahman Bialik was a rejection of human revenge, not an endorsement of it – columnist Roger Cohen similarly distorts another Israeli source. Cohen writes ('Israel's bloody status quo'):

Sheldon Adelson’s right-wing Israel Hayom, the biggest-selling newspaper in Israel, has called for Gaza to be 'returned to the Stone Age.' During the last Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza, in 2012, a government minister called for Gaza to be consigned 'to the Middle Ages.' Before that, there was the Gaza War of 2008-2009, in which 1,166 Palestinians died and 13 Israelis, according to the Israel Defense Forces.

The story goes on and on. There is no denouement. Gaza, a small place jammed with 1.8 million people, does not recess to the Stone, Iron, Middle or other Ages. It does not get flattened, as Ariel Sharon’s son once proposed. The death toll is overwhelmingly skewed against Palestinians. Hamas, with its militia and arsenal of rockets, continues to run Gaza. The dead die for nothing.

Like the editorial writer who either ignored or did not comprehend the well-known, crucial lines of the Bialik poem rejecting the notion of human vengeance, Cohen has completely distorted an excerpt from Israel Hayom by removing it from its context. Here is what Israel Hayom's Amos Regev actually wrote:

The Gaza Strip must be returned to the Stone Age. Not in the sense of destroying every home and all the infrastructure, which would leave Gaza residents wandering among ruins. Rather, Israel should eliminate every rocket, bomb and gun in Gaza. In other words, get rid of the arsenal Hamas has accumulated over the past 10 years. The snake must be defanged, leaving Hamas without rockets. The most it would have left would be stones. . . .

Rather, Israel must return Hamas to a situation in which the most it can do is throw stones. This is how it was when Hamas was founded, in Gaza, during the First Intifada. But since then, particularly over the past 10 years, Hamas equipped itself with long-range rockets. It would take only 10 days to return Hamas to the Stone Age.

In other words, Regev is not talking about 'flattening' Gaza, as Cohen would have readers believe. Rather, Regev's reference to the 'Stone Age' refers to the demilitarization of Gaza, in which Hamas, stripped of its rocket arsenal, would be armed only with stones."

Does Cohen bother apologizing for this grotesque distortion in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hope in the Abattoir" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/opinion/roger-cohen-the-shared-destiny-of-israel-and-gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region)? No way.

Instead, Cohen concludes his op-ed today concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a vacuous conclusion:

"Nobody is going away. The peoples of the Holy Land are condemned to each other. Without that realization, any truce, even any demilitarization of Gaza, will only be a way station to the next round of slaughter."

Needless to say, Cohen makes certain not to mention that in 2008, when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert offered Palestinian Authority President Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem, Abbas refused. Cohen also ignores the fact that several years earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Barak similarly offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and tear down 63 Israeli settlements. In exchange for the settlements that would remain part of Israel, Barak said he would increase the size of Gaza by a third. Barak also agreed to Palestinian control of much of East Jerusalem, which would become Palestine's capital, and Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Arafat, however, also refused.

Also, no mention by Cohen of the recent results of a Washington Institute for Near East Policy poll (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/new-palestinian-poll-shows-hardline-views-but-some-pragmatism-too) which determined (my emphasis in red):

"Regarding the longer-term, fundamental issue of a two-state solution, Palestinian public opinion has clearly taken a maximalist turn. Other recent polls, even after the collapse of the latest peace talks, showed a majority or plurality still favoring the goal of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, alongside Israel (though the numbers were gradually declining). But now, a clear majority (60% overall, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza) say that the five-year goal 'should be to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.'"

Or in other words, Israelis are willing to accept a demilitarized Palestinian state. On the other hand, a clear majority of Palestinians refuse to accept Israel's right to exist. But why should Cohen mention this, given his need to "balance" the blame for the latest outbreak of fighting in Gaza?

Disgusting.

David Ignatius, "Why the Mideast peace process is in tatters": A Flagrant Falsehood

How low can David Ignatius go?

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why the Mideast peace process is in tatters" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-why-the-mideast-peace-process-is-in-tatters/2014/05/15/c8345e78-dc5b-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html?hpid=z3), Ignatius declares (my emphasis in red):

"The issue of Israeli settlements humiliated the Palestinian negotiators and poisoned the talks, according to statements by U.S. negotiators. When Israel announced 700 new settlements in early April, before the April 29 deadline for the talks, 'Poof, that was sort of the moment,' Kerry told a Senate panel. Warned Indyk at a gathering of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 'Rampant settlement activity — especially in the midst of negotiations — doesn’t just undermine Palestinian trust in the purpose of the negotiations; it can undermine Israel’s Jewish future.'"

Israel "announced 700 new settlements in early April"? Oh really? As the basis for his contention, Ignatius links to a Haaretz article entitled "While Kerry tries to clinch deal, Israel issues 700 tenders beyond Green Line" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-why-the-mideast-peace-process-is-in-tatters/2014/05/15/c8345e78-dc5b-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html?hpid=z3) by Nir Hasson and Barak Ravid, which informs us (my emphasis in red):

"The Israel Lands Authority published a tender for 708 residential units in Gilo on Tuesday, just hours after reports that a deal with the U.S. on a settlement freeze for spy Jonathan Pollard's release was close to being sealed."

Yes, there is an enormous difference between "settlements" and "residential units," i.e. apartments.


Moreover, as observed by The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=2&x_outlet=33&x_article=2679):

"The 708 housing units in question are all located in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, and Palestinians do not claim Gilo should be part of their future state. Although the Jerusalem neighborhood is located over the Green Line, in previous rounds of negotiations, such as in Camp David, and again in the 2008 Olmert talks, it was never under consideration to transfer Gilo to the Palestinian Authority."

As to the Kerry/Indyk contention, parroted by Ignatius, that "Israeli settlements humiliated the Palestinian negotiators and poisoned the talks," Elliott Abrams and Uri Sadot observed by in a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Israel gets no credit from Obama for a year of moderate settlement construction" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/israel-gets-no-credit-from-obama-for-a-year-of-moderate-settlement-construction/2014/03/13/d2ee1b12-aab8-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html):

"Israel built 2,534 housing units last year in the West Bank. Of these, about a quarter (694) were in two major blocs near Jerusalem, Giv’at Ze’ev and Betar Illit, and 537 were in two other major blocs, Modiin Illit and Ma’ale Adumim, also near Jerusalem. These four, which will remain part of Israel, account for half of last year’s construction. They are not isolated outposts but instead are towns with populations in the tens of thousands, near the Green Line, as the 1949 armistice line and 1967 border are known.

The critical figure to monitor is the number of Israeli houses built outside such blocs in areas intended for the future state of Palestine. What the CBS data tell us on that question is that only 908 units were built last year in Israeli townships of 10,000 residents or fewer. And most of those units were built in settlement towns that are part of the major blocs. Units built in areas that would become part of Palestine number in the hundreds — and likely in the low hundreds. Given that about 90,000 Israelis live in the West Bank outside the blocs, that is approximately the rate of natural growth. So much for [President Obama's] claim of 'aggressive construction.'"

Will Ignatius issue any sort of retraction? Let's wait and see.

[Yes, WaPo issued a correction: "An earlier version of this column incorrectly reported that Israel announced 700 new settlements in April. Israel announced 700 new settlement apartments last month. The following version has been updated."]

Thomas Friedman, "Something for Barack and Bibi to Talk About": A Total Absence of Objectivity

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Something for Barack and Bibi to Talk About" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/opinion/sunday/friedman-something-for-barack-and-bibi-to-talk-about.html?_r=0), would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman provides the basis for his understanding of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Friedman writes:

"I can think of no better time for a good book about Israel — the real Israel, not the fantasy, do-no-wrong Israel peddled by its most besotted supporters or the do-no-right colonial monster portrayed by its most savage critics. Ari Shavit, the popular Haaretz columnist, has come out with just such a book this week, entitled 'My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel.'

Shavit is one of a handful of experts whom I’ve relied upon to understand Israel ever since I reported there in the 1980s. What do all my Israeli analytical sources have in common? They all share a way of thinking about Israel — which is expressed with deep insight, compassion and originality in Shavit’s must-read book — that to understand Israel today requires keeping several truths in tension in your head at the same time.

. . . .

In a brutally honest chapter entitled 'Lydda, 1948,' Shavit reconstructs the story of how the population of this Palestinian Arab town, in the center of what was to become Israel, was expelled on July 13th in the 1948 war.

'By noon, a mass evacuation is under way,' writes Shavit. 'By evening, tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs leave Lydda in a long column, marching south past the Ben Shemen youth village and disappearing into the East. Zionism obliterates the city of Lydda. Lydda is our black box. In it lies the dark secret of Zionism. ... If Zionism was to be, Lydda could not be.'"

Of course, Friedman doesn't bother to mention how, during the 1948 war, the Jews were expelled from the Old City of Jerusalem and all but one of its synagogues were destroyed.

More to the point, Friedman doesn't bother telling his readers about the battle of Lydda in 1948 and ignores a shockingly different account of what happened there, written by Alex Safian (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=122&x_article=2572). Contradicting Shavit's account, Safian observes that pursuant to the initial surrender agreement, the inhabitants of Lydda were told by the Israeli army that they could remain in their town; however, when a Jordanian patrol entered the city, they again attacked the Israeli troops. Safian writes:

"Despite the surrender agreement, and the promise to turn over arms, the Israelis, now numbering only 500 men, had to once again take the town in another desperate battle.

Fighting house-to-house to root out snipers, and this time giving no quarter, within an hour much of the town was once again under control, and an estimated 200 Arabs were dead.

But the Dahmash Mosque, was still fighting, held by an estimated 70 fighters, and with an unknown number of others inside. Rather than launch a costly frontal assault, Lt. Col. Kelman decided to breach the mosque's walls with an anti-tank weapon, known as a PIAT, and then have a platoon rush the building.

After the PIAT was fired, the men that stormed the building found that the defenders were dead, killed by the effects of the armor piercing projectile in the confined space of the mosque. (Kurzman, p. 515-516)

The second battle to take Lydda was over, but now facing the Israelis was the difficult question of what to do with the inhabitants. The town leaders, knowing that they had broken their word to surrender and disarm, and knowing in particular that the five Israeli soldiers outside the mosque had been massacred and their bodies mutilated, feared that the Israelis would now return the favor.

It's hardly surprising that the Israelis were in no mood to give the residents another chance to break their promise to live in peace. But, of course, the Israelis also didn't execute or 'massacre' them. Instead, the residents were ordered to evacuate the city and move towards the Jordanian lines and Ramallah."

. . . .

[I]f you know the facts – that the town surrendered, went back on its word, massacred and mutilated Israeli soldiers, and then despite all this the residents were allowed to leave unharmed – the picture looks very different.

You want to learn more about Israel and the Middle East? Start by ignoring Friedman.

Pamela Geller Prevented from Speaking at Great Neck Synagogue; CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager Spreads Lies About Israel at His New Canaan Church

Pamela Geller, founder of the Atlas Shrugs blog and known for her advocacy on behalf of Israel, has been prevented from speaking today at a Great Neck, Long Island synagogue. As explained by Jerusalem Post Columnist Caroline Glick (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Column-One-Moral-relativism-and-jihad-309549):

"Last month, after learning of her talk, a consortium of Islamic and leftist activists in Nassau County led by Habeed Ahmed from the Islamic Center of Long Island launched a pressure campaign to coerce the synagogue into cancelling her speech. Members of the group telephoned the synagogue and castigated Geller as a bigot, and likened her to the Nazis in the 1930s.

In short order liberal rabbis Michael White and Jerome Davidson took over the opposition to Geller and launched a media campaign attacking her as a bigot and demanding that the Great Neck Synagogue cancel her speech.

Rejecting the distinction Geller makes between jihadists and their victims – Muslim and non-Muslim alike, White and Davidson claimed that she opposes all Muslims and so her speech must be canceled. By hosting her, they intoned, the Great Neck Synagogue would be guilty of propagating hate speech. Liberal Christian and Jewish activists and their Muslim associates threatened to protest the speech.

On Wednesday the synagogue caved in to their massive pressure. Citing 'security concerns' the synagogue board released a statement saying that while 'these important issues must be discussed, the synagogue is unable to bear the burden' of the pressure campaign surrounding Geller’s planned speech. Her event was canceled."

Rabbi Jerome Davidson's claim that Geller is given to hate speech and should not be allowed to speak at the Great Neck Synagogue? Listen to David Wood demolish Davidson's contentions.

Meanwhile, Jeff Fager, chairman of CBS News, last week was busy spreading lies about Israel's security barrier at his New Canaan, Connecticut church. As reported by Dexter Van Zile (http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2013/4/9/cbs-news-needs-to-come-clean-about-60-minutes-palestinian-christians-segment):

"Invited to speak at the church by his pastor Rev. Peter Walsh, Fager showed an audience of more than 200 of his fellow parishioners a segment about Palestinian Christians that aired on the CBS '60 Minutes' program in April 2012.

During the segment, correspondent Bob Simon stated that the security fence 'completely surrounds Bethlehem, turning the ‘little town' where Christ was born into what its residents call ‘an open air prison.’'

The fence does not completely surround Bethlehem, as Simon reported. The security fence is located to the north and west of Bethlehem and leaves the rest of the city’s perimeter open to the West Bank.

. . . .

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), pointed out the '60 Minutes' error in an article on its website soon after the segment aired and in a half-page ad that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 14, 2012.

Nevertheless, the CBS show has not issued a correction to this day.

After showing his fellow parishioners the '60 Minutes' segment, Fager complained about the angry response the show elicited. In particular, he condemned the Wall Street Journal’s decision to run CAMERA’s ad, which he said was intended to create havoc on the CBS show’s reporting.

Fager then told his audience that CAMERA got it wrong about the security fence in its ad and that 'Bethlehem is surrounded by a wall.'

. . . .

During the question and answer period, I raised my hand, stated I worked for CAMERA, the organization responsible for the ad in question, and then issued a simple and direct challenge: If Jeff Fager could prove that the security fence completely surrounds Bethlehem like he said a few moments before, I would donate $5,000 to a charity of his choosing.

His response was a simple 'Okay.'

After the event concluded and the people in attendance started to leave for the church’s Sunday services, I gave him my business card. So far, no response."

As can be seen on any map, the Israeli security barrier does not surround Bethlehem (see, for example: http://www.btselem.org/download/separation_barrier_map_eng.pdf). But why should that prevent Fager from disseminating lies at his church of all places?

Welcome to our Brave New World in which American synagogues are unable to provide a forum for pro-Israel advocates, but honchos and pundits from the media - Fager joins Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman in recent weeks - can spread lies about Israel with impunity anywhere they please (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/fred-hiatt-editorial-page-editor-of.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/second-open-letter-to-margaret-sullivan.html).

But why should we be surprised, given that most leading Jewish organizations were too fearful to express opposition to Obama's appointment of Chuck Hagel, an anti-Semite, as secretary of defense?

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" . . .