All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss 2

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

For the second time in less than a month, the Guardian benignly referred to Hezbollah as merely a Lebanese “Shia movement”, without explaining to readers that it’s a global terrorist group proscribed by the EU, US and the British government. (The UK and US proscribe both its political and military wings.)

In an email to Guardian editors last month, we complained about a Sept. 20 article (“Israel risks crossing Hezbollah ‘red line’ as it prepares to connect to disputed gas field”) by Jerusalem correspondent Bethan McKernan which included the following:

Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese Shia movementallied with Iran…

Our complaint, asking that they amend the article to note that the Iranian proxy is a recognized terrorist organisation, but received no reply.

The second such characterisation occurred in an article by McKernan last week (“Israel and Lebanon reach ‘historic’ maritime and border gas fields deal”, Oct. 11):

Talks on resolving the border dispute began in 2020 but have faced repeated setbacks , including threats towards Israel from Lebanon’s powerful Shia movement, Hezbollah,

In our complaint today addressing this latest omission, we stressed to editors that readers are grossly misled by the failure to adequately characterise the “Shia movement’s” extremist, antisemitic ideology, which fueled their history of deadly terror attacks targeting innocent Jews, including Jews outside the Middle East.

(full article online )

Guardian again omits Hezbollah's terror designation

For the second time in less than a month, the Guardian benignly referred to Hezbollah as merely a Lebanese "Shia movement", without explaining to readers tha

camera-uk.org

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jerusalem is occupied territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

For the second time in less than a month, the Guardian benignly referred to Hezbollah as merely a Lebanese “Shia movement”, without explaining to readers that it’s a global terrorist group proscribed by the EU, US and the British government. (The UK and US proscribe both its political and military wings.)

In an email to Guardian editors last month, we complained about a Sept. 20 article (“Israel risks crossing Hezbollah ‘red line’ as it prepares to connect to disputed gas field”) by Jerusalem correspondent Bethan McKernan which included the following:

Our complaint, asking that they amend the article to note that the Iranian proxy is a recognized terrorist organisation, but received no reply.

The second such characterisation occurred in an article by McKernan last week (“Israel and Lebanon reach ‘historic’ maritime and border gas fields deal”, Oct. 11):

In our complaint today addressing this latest omission, we stressed to editors that readers are grossly misled by the failure to adequately characterise the “Shia movement’s” extremist, antisemitic ideology, which fueled their history of deadly terror attacks targeting innocent Jews, including Jews outside the Middle East.

(full article online )

Guardian again omits Hezbollah's terror designation

For the second time in less than a month, the Guardian benignly referred to Hezbollah as merely a Lebanese "Shia movement", without explaining to readers tha

camera-uk.org

They don't use the name calling list.

 

[Hollie]

Jerusalem is occupied territory.

The islamic occupiers must leave.

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[rylah]

Jerusalem is occupied territory.

Because Jerusalem is foreign to you.

Jerusalem is a city, only a territory to those
who's mind is preoccupied with shallow valleys.

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

For some Jews—proud Jews like Menachem Begin—that was impossible. No Jew should be treated like that, have to live like that, on Jewish soil. The balance of power was out of whack. So the Etzel bombed a building. But they first told the people to leave: the occupants of the hotel and the people next door at the French Consulate. The Etzel gave advance notice of the bombing to the English-language paper of record and personally evacuated the hotel workers.

No one was supposed to be hurt. But the Brits didn’t think the Jews had it in them. So they failed to leave the building and save themselves. They also failed to share that information with others in the building who were loyal to them, such as my cousin Yehuda, who clearly made the wrong choice.

This is not terror. This is stupid people who hate and underestimate the Jews so much they won’t leave a building about to be bombed, even with advanced warning.

When someone calls to alert you on the phone, telling you exactly what is going to happen when, and leaving you plenty of time to leave--that’s not terror. It’s the world once more refusing to mind its own business and leave the Jews alone. Especially within the borders of Eretz Israel.


An Arab terrorist isn’t in the business of making a show. Rather than minimizing casualties, he aims to maximize them. And of course, the Arab terrorist’s biggest advantage is the element of surprise.

Arab terrorists come through windows and kill little girls like Hallel Yaffa Ariel. They explode pizzerias and kill little girls like Malki Roth. They burst into homes and decapitate babies like 3-month-old Hadas Fogel. They point their rifles at babies in their strollers taking sun in the park, like 10-month-old Shalhevet Pass. They ram into babies in their strollers at bus stops and kill them, like 3-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun.
And they never warn a soul. Because the entire purpose of terror is to terrorize. Which is what Yehuda Yanovsky would be the first to tell you, were he alive today. My cousin was not a victim of “Jewish terror” but of British scorn for the Jewish people.

(full article online)

The King David Hotel Bombing—What Arab Terrorist Ever Warned a Jew, First? (Judean Rose)

Was the King David Hotel bombing an example of "Jewish terror?"

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

For the 21st anniversary of Israel's Independence in 1969, the Arab Information Center put an ad in the Miami Herald that tried to link Israel with the US use of napalm in Vietnam, asking "what has Israel offered - Shalom or Napalm?"



Israel never used napalm against civilians, but the propaganda outlet wanted people to believe that it did.

Around the same time (maybe as early as 1968), Palestinian terror group Fatah issued a poster and stamp series with the same theme, "Shalom and Napalm," featuring a child victim of napalm that they implied was a Palestinian. (Both Fatah and the PFLP at the time issued stamps as fundraisers that often had antisemitic themes [h/t iTi].)






These were disgusting blood libels, made worse by juxtaposing "Shalom" with war crimes.

So naturally it was picked up by the far-Left in Germany.

Historian Jeffrey Herf notes that on November 9, 1969, the anniversary of Kristallnacht, a bomb was found in the Jewish Community Center in Berlin. At the same time, monuments commemorating the Holocaust were defaced with graffiti saying “Shalom”, “Napalm” and “El Fateh."

Four days later, an article was published by a radical socialist group called the Black Rats in a leftist magazine in West Berlin, Agit 883, taking credit for the planned attack, and saying that the focus of the Left will move from Vietnam to the Middle East and vilifying "fascist" Israel, saying Germans should stop feeling guilty about the Holocaust because the Jews were the new Nazis.

The name of the article? Again, “Shalom and Napalm.”

The German Leftists behind this were clearly antisemitic by any measure.

Their leading figure, Dieter Kunzelmann, was antisemitic. His antisemitism was not complicated. He simply didn’t like Jews. As Albert Fichter, who planted the bomb in the Jewish Community Centre, later recalled:

““Kunzelmann and Georg von Rauch [another Tupamaro] swore more and more about ‘shitty Jews’. Kunzelmann always spoke about ‘Jewish pigs’ and wound up people against them. At that time he was like a classic antisemite. Georg spoke the same way.”

Similarly, German Leftists are assumed to be behind the 1970 arson attack on a Munich Jewish community center that killed seven Holocaust survivors. And it was German Leftists, not Palestinians, who separated Orthodox Jews along with the Israelis on the 1976 Air France flight that was hijacked to Entebbe.

At the time, the accusation that Israel was using napalm against children was only an implication. Fatah and the German leftists knew enough not to directly make the slander that Israel napalmed Palestinians. It was pure propaganda meant to make people believe the lie, without saying it directly.

But there is an even more disgusting postscript to this blood libel, ten years later.

Way before "Jewish Voice for Peace" started hijacking Jewish rituals for antisemitic purposes, in 1978, the PLO issued its own "Haggadah" where they changed Jewish Passover songs to directly make the accusation of Jews killing Palestinian children with napalm while "repeating shalom:"



The Jew-hatred from both the Leftists and the Palestinians is undeniable in these examples. When they deny being antisemitic today, it is important to understand the history: they haven't changed their positions one bit - they are just obfuscating their antisemitism enough to convince self-described "anti-racists" who want to believe them.

A thoroughly disgusting, antisemitic 1969 blood libel by Fatah and Leftist activists: "Shalom & Napalm"

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Like hummus joints studding a Middle Eastern metropolis, false references to Tel Aviv as shorthand for Israel are a fixture of the Arabic media landscape, experts repeatedly told CAMERA prior to the 2018 launch of CAMERA Arabic. This seemingly immutable feature is true even for Arabic-language reports published in Western media outlets which do not accept that false assertion in English and other languages, the media professionals said.

A second takeaway from the countless meetings with Arabic media insiders was that there is no body or organization holding Western media outlets accountable for their misreporting in Arabic, and no one systematically communicating to English-language editors the alternate reality reporting of their Arabic-speaking colleagues, employees of their very own media institutions. Nor is there any culture of correcting erroneous reporting appearing in Arabic-language reports of Western media outlets.


A Tel Aviv street at night (Photo by Mikhail Kryshen Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License)
Some five years later, following the establishment and the growing successes of CAMERA Arabic, the second point is no longer true. CAMERA Arabic has clearly established itself as the leading (and only) organization systematically monitoring, prompting an impressive 41 Arabic corrections at leading Western media outlets last year.

As for the first Arabic media fixture, CAMERA Arabic puts the breaks on the non-stop formulation falsely casting the “non-stop city,” ie Tel Aviv, as Israel’s capital.

During the months of August and September 2022, CAMERA Arabic prompted 17 corrections at four media outlets which falsely referred to Tel Aviv as Israel’s seat of government. Below is a comprehensive list of the corrections.

Deutsche Welle Arabic (Germany) corrected eight reports on Aug. 25:

July 20 (before/after): “Brussels, Tel Aviv and Cairo The EU, Israel and Egypt have signed an agreement to export Israeli gas to Europe”
July 24 (before/after): “Moscow is displeased by Tel Aviv’s Israel’s position towards the Ukrainian war”
July 26 (before/after): “Tel Aviv Israel described the request to ‘dissolve’ the Jewish Agency for emigration out of Russia as a ‘severe incident’”
July 26 (before/after): “Tel Aviv and Rabat Israel and Morocco signed a memorandum of cooperation in the field of law”
Aug. 8 (before/after): “ongoing fire that Tel Aviv Israel has exchanged with the ‘Islamic Jihad’ movement”
Aug. 17: “years of severe tension which dominated the relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv the two countries”
Aug. 18 (before/after): “[photo caption:] Lavrov’s statements, where he compared Vlodimir Zelensky and Hitler, are an additional reason of tension between Moscow and Tel Aviv Russia and Israel”
Aug. 22 (before/after): “Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz has confirmed the existence of a crisis in the relations between Cairo and Tel Aviv Egypt and Israel”

BBC Arabic (UK) – corrected throughout August and September


(full article online)

Putting the Breaks on Arabic Media Falsely Citing 'Non-Stop' Tel Aviv As Israel's Capital

CAMERA Arabic puts the breaks on the omnipresent Arabic media formulation falsely casting Tel Aviv as Israel's capital, prompting 17 corrections in two months.

www.camera.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

Exclusive: The Jerusalem plot held by the UK as future site of embassy in Israel

UK government owns land known as the 'Orange Plot' earmarked for decades for use as an embassy, a Middle East Eye investigation reveals

www.middleeasteye.net

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

In this piece, we will take a look at Jenin’s economy, its monumental growth in the 15-year period following the Second Intifada, and the threat that terrorism poses to its continued growth.

From Traditional Markets to Mass Investment: Jenin’s Economic Boom​

Based in the northern West Bank, Jenin’s economy has traditionally been based on agriculture, due to the region’s fertile soil and access to natural springs.

However, the city underwent a period of unprecedented economic growth after the Second Intifada. During the terror wave, Jenin was the site of some of the most intense fighting between the Israeli army and Palestinian terror groups.

The economic growth was marked by increased Arab Israeli investment, the opening of the Arab American University (which strengthened businesses in the areas surrounding the university’s campus and dormitories), increased movement of people and goods between the region and pre-1967 Israel at the nearby Gilboa / Jalameh crossing (which opened in 2009), an increase in residents of Jenin working for Israeli businesses and a boom in the real estate sector.

(full article online)

https://honestreporting.com/spotlight-on-jenin-part-six-threat-terrorism-economy/

 

[Sixties Fan]

Russia has drawn down forces in Syria, including removing a sophisticated air defense system that has been a major threat to Israeli Air Force operations in the country, according to a Wednesday night report.

The New York Times said the development could open the door for Jerusalem to upgrade its level of support for Kyiv, as Russia’s presence in Syria has been a major consideration for Israel’s position on the matter.

The transfer of the S-300 anti-aircraft system out of Syria comes amid a larger Russian drawdown in the country as it seeks to bolster its faltering offensive against Ukraine, according to a senior Israeli defense official and two senior Western diplomats cited by The Times.

(full article online)

Report: Russia draws down forces in Syria, removes S-300 system that troubled Israel

Israeli and Western officials tell NY Times the development could affect Jerusalem's calculations on providing aid to Kyiv

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hamas is a response to Israeli aggression.

 

[Sixties Fan]

It happens again and again. A major institution, whether the UN, Amnesty or HRW, issues a report that asserts what it considers facts, it refers to a footnoted publication, and the footnote proves that they are lying.

Here is an example from the latest UN Commission of Inquiry report. It finds that Israel's "occupation" is unlawful under international law. It says:

The occupation of territory in wartime is, under international humanitarian law, a temporary situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty. Occupation as a result of war cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory.

The footnote to this points to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), commentary of 1958 on article 47of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

The wording of that commentary makes it clear that Israel is not occupying "Palestinian territory" which is the linchpin of the entire argument.

It says:

This provision of the Hague Regulations is not applicable only to the inhabitants of the occupied territory; it also protects the separate existence of the State, its institutions and its laws. ...As was emphasized in the commentary on Article 4, the occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty.

What state is Israel occupying? If there was no state there, there is no occupation. The UN report's own footnote betrays that the assumptions behind the entire report itself is false.

The commentary emphasizes that the purpose of the Convention is to protect the people, not the State. Israel agrees with this and its High Court rulings have always upheld the humanitarian aspects of the Geneva Conventions even without the existence of a Palestinian state in the territories it controls.

However, the text itself makes it clear that there is no occupation if there is no previously existing State that had legal title to the land - and there wasn't one. It sure isn't Jordan, whose annexation of the West Bank was illegal by virtually every yardstick. It cannot be the "State of Palestine" because we are told - by the UN - that the territories have been occupied since 1967 and no one claims that the "State of Palestine" existed before 1988 at the earliest.

I have yet to find an international law expert say the exact date that "occupied territories" of 1967 became "occupied Palestinian territories." But the UN retroactively says that the territories that Israel won in a defensive war have been "Palestinian" since 1967 - they even have had a "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."

Israel also has the absolute right to protect its own soldiers and citizens from harm that comes from the territories, under the same Geneva Conventions. As always at the UN and with other modern antisemites, a question of competing rights is being treated as if only one side has human rights, and they assume that Jews simply do not have such rights.

The UN's fast and loose definition of "occupation" is made clear in footnote 10:

For the purposes of the present report, “the territories that Israel occupies” and equivalent terms are a reference to East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan, Gaza and the West Bank outside East Jerusalem.

Israel doesn't occupy Gaza by any definition of the term that existed in any legal manual or article before Israel's withdrawal from the territory in 2004. Those who claim that Israel occupies Gaza without having a single soldier there have literally made up a new definition of occupation to apply to Israel only. Essentially, the UN is admitting - not for the first time - that it doesn't care about the legal definition of occupation to begin with; it applies the label to Israel without any regard to what it means.

Which is this entire report in a nutshell. If Israel is not occupying "Palestinian territory" under the legal definition of occupation then there is no "occupation" that can be declared illegal. The UN decided to make the declaration of illegality first, and tried to justify it afterwards, all while pretending to give an impartial legal analysis.

The UN Commission of Inquiry's footnotes betray how they lie

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

It happens again and again. A major institution, whether the UN, Amnesty or HRW, issues a report that asserts what it considers facts, it refers to a footnoted publication, and the footnote proves that they are lying.

Here is an example from the latest UN Commission of Inquiry report. It finds that Israel's "occupation" is unlawful under international law. It says:



The footnote to this points to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), commentary of 1958 on article 47of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

The wording of that commentary makes it clear that Israel is not occupying "Palestinian territory" which is the linchpin of the entire argument.

It says:


What state is Israel occupying? If there was no state there, there is no occupation. The UN report's own footnote betrays that the assumptions behind the entire report itself is false.

The commentary emphasizes that the purpose of the Convention is to protect the people, not the State. Israel agrees with this and its High Court rulings have always upheld the humanitarian aspects of the Geneva Conventions even without the existence of a Palestinian state in the territories it controls.

However, the text itself makes it clear that there is no occupation if there is no previously existing State that had legal title to the land - and there wasn't one. It sure isn't Jordan, whose annexation of the West Bank was illegal by virtually every yardstick. It cannot be the "State of Palestine" because we are told - by the UN - that the territories have been occupied since 1967 and no one claims that the "State of Palestine" existed before 1988 at the earliest.

I have yet to find an international law expert say the exact date that "occupied territories" of 1967 became "occupied Palestinian territories." But the UN retroactively says that the territories that Israel won in a defensive war have been "Palestinian" since 1967 - they even have had a "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."

Israel also has the absolute right to protect its own soldiers and citizens from harm that comes from the territories, under the same Geneva Conventions. As always at the UN and with other modern antisemites, a question of competing rights is being treated as if only one side has human rights, and they assume that Jews simply do not have such rights.

The UN's fast and loose definition of "occupation" is made clear in footnote 10:


Israel doesn't occupy Gaza by any definition of the term that existed in any legal manual or article before Israel's withdrawal from the territory in 2004. Those who claim that Israel occupies Gaza without having a single soldier there have literally made up a new definition of occupation to apply to Israel only. Essentially, the UN is admitting - not for the first time - that it doesn't care about the legal definition of occupation to begin with; it applies the label to Israel without any regard to what it means.

Which is this entire report in a nutshell. If Israel is not occupying "Palestinian territory" under the legal definition of occupation then there is no "occupation" that can be declared illegal. The UN decided to make the declaration of illegality first, and tried to justify it afterwards, all while pretending to give an impartial legal analysis.

The UN Commission of Inquiry's footnotes betray how they lie

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Load of hooey. Palestine has been sovereign Palestinian territory since 1924.