Saturday, July 31, 2010


By Schmoel Yitzhak


Finding something roughly equivalent to kind words about Bibi Netanyahu is like discovering a glacier embedded in the Libyan desert.

It just doesn't happen.

But as any bookmaker will tell you, sometimes the longshot does come through and, alas, Haaretz's Israel Harel actual fingered Mahmoud (Bobo) Abbas as the negotiating culprit in the latest non-round of Palestinian-Israeli talks.

"Netanyahu," writes Harel, "has given you, gratis, the ultimate recognition that no previous Likud leader ever dared to grant; a declaration of your right to an independent state in the Land of Israel. Yet even the miniscule price the Americas asked of you -- direct talks -- you refused to pay.

"When you continued to refuse, Netanyahu froze construction in the settlements. But even then you did not return to the negotiation table. And if you reaped two strategic achievements such as these while giving nothing in return, why should you hurry? The lemon can be squeezed again and again."

Maybe yes, maybe no. What matters here is that Haaretz -- which often seems like an extension of the PA's p.r. department -- has at least someone who momentarily gets it.

If Bibi has wised up -- a point we harshly question -- he'll say, "enough is enough" in any language Bobo Abbas and his puppeteer, Barack Obama, can understand.

The Abbas Deal-making Game would be rejected in Court of Logic because it's patently absurd and illogical.

As Harel points out, Israel's Prime Minister delivers a concession and, in return, he receives from the Palestinian President a big fat yawn.

Then, Bibi blinks and offers yet another concession, ostensibly figuring that Bobo didn't hear him the first time.

So, what do you think Netanyahu gets in return?

Redundancy. Another yawn -- only larger and more obese than its predecessor.

A reasonable jurist in the Court of Logic would render this decision: "Bobo; get real or get out of sight!"

P.S. Let's not kid ourselves, nor let Obama kid himself, Abbas is a cardboard leader, propped by the American president. Bobo has nil influence on Gaza and Hamas.

And since Hamas is at WAR with Israel, talk of peace with the Palestinians is as academic as Oxford University!

A few years ago a solicitor for the New York Times phoned me and suggested that I subscribe to the alleged "newspaper of record."

Rather than hang up on the poor sap, I let him know in no uncertain verbs that I stop buying his merchandise months ago because of its unfair tilt against Israel.

After listening to his mumbo-jumbo, um-haks and sputtts, I told him, "Thanks, but no-thanks" and then politely hung up.

Since then, New York City's only morning broad-sheet has tilted so egregiously in favor of Israel's foes, it reads more like Haaretz than Haaretz.

But, as we've all learned, change is as possible as the first bud of spring or, if you will, the last rose of summer. Could this, however, be true at The Times?

Doubtful, but one can hope and that woeful wish is rooted in the news that Arthur Brisbane has been hired to be the Times' public editor. Which means that he's supposed to be the paper's sentinel for fair play in print or, as he's touted, to uphold "the highest standards in journalism."

Anyone who believes that -- when it comes to coverage of Israel -- Brisbane will deliver on that fair play pledge simply doesn't know how to spell CYNIC.

Nevertheless, we won't judge Brisbane until he gets a few editions under his computer.

Still, to give the man something with which to work, we suggest that he check out Andrea Levin's July 29th Jerusalem Post piece aimed squarely at Brisbane and his task ahead.

Citing chapters and verse, Levin -- executive director and president of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America -- wonders whether the Times' public editor is capable of handling his challenge.

Specifically, she pointedly rips Times' Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner for a "strikingly jaundiced view of Israelis generally."

In one article dealing with a poll showing Israelis dismay with Obama policy, Bronner said it reflected collective public "prejudice" and "racism."

Talk about prejudice; Bronner has shown the way while Levin nails him with the facts.

"The incendiary charge is belied empirically by poll data showing Israelis had actually favored over John McCain in the 2008 election," asserts Levin, "and until the late spring of 2009 continued to approve quite enthusiastically of the young American president."

That's just one of several points made by Levin. Now we'll see whether Brisbane will see the light or play ostrich when it comes to his paper's anti-Israel stance that has grown worse by the years.


There was a very, very sensible reason for Cast Lead, Israel's invasion of Gaza.

Thousands upon thousands of rockets had been fired by Hamas and its affiliates at Israel.

The Israeli city of Sderot suffered years of collective trauma while Judge Goldstone remained significantly mute.

Since neither the holier-than-thou European union, Oliver Stone nor Helen Thomas cared to do anything about it, there was only one thing for the targeted country to do and, thus, Israel fought back.

One would have thought the result of a forced-upon-Israel truce would have wrought peace but that kind of thinking is for Pollyanna and not realists.

So, why should one be surprised that, once again, grad rockets are being fired at -- and landing in -- Ashkelon while mortar shells are exploding in the Negev?

My suggestions for Prime Minister Netanyahu are rather simple. To wit:

1. Do not turn the other cheek.

2. Issue an ultimatum to Hamas -- and the rest of the world: shoot one more rocket or mortal shell at Israel and you will get 100 in return. Double and triple the response if it continues.

3. Ignore Goldstone.

Friday, July 30, 2010


So Barak Obama has wised up to the Palestinians’ political games and is finally learning his modern Middle-East History 101.

After going to bat for Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas by playing bad cop with Israel concerning her communities in Judea and Samaria, he is now being forced to reconsider this illogical foreign policy.

Obama pushed for Israel to lift road blocks and she did. Obama wanted to have Palestinians prisoners released from Israeli jails and they were: all along, though Abbas kept playing the naive new president pushing for a settlement freeze. Eventually Obama got one -- of sorts -- from Israeli PM Netanyahu.

To get this done, Obama was forced to foment the worst relations between the heretofore strongest of Allies.

But, when the Palestinians were called upon to pony up and start direct negotiations, the PA preconditions continue to flow like an unchecked river. Saeb Erekat and Mahmoud Abbas now refuse to start negotiations until Israel accepts the borders of June 5th, 1967!

President Obama must be banging his head against an Oval Office wall, as he discovers that, like so many before him, he has been burned by an ungrateful Palestinian leadership.

Obama has learned that Mahmoud Abbas would rather spend his time backing those who wish to delegitimize Israel than making peace with the Jewish State. So what can Israel and her great friend President Barack Hussein Obama do?

In Israel’s case it is a simple matter: we have given and the Palestinians -- as always -- have not. Obama and his Democratic party are now faced with a dire situation in American politics and Israel must use this to her advantage.

Israel must play this smart and Bibi must do all he can to help President Obama.

Although there are no more political presents for us to give to the President concerning concessions, we must do all we can to not create road blocks for him.

If the President fails to rein in Abbas, Fayyad and Erekat, it must be made clear to him that Israel will start naming her own preconditions to negotiations.

If the Palestinians wish to continue playing hardball, Israel can easily demand as a precondition a Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish State -- something which, as unbelievable as it is, she has NEVER done!

Next, Israel must make it clear to Obama that those who attempt to boycott or harm her citizens in any way, whether physical or financial, will pay a price.

Israel must make it clear to Obama that she views the boycott of Israel, the attempts to have her classified as an Apartheid State and the drive to have her delegitimized as direct attacks on her safety and that of her citizens.

For every organization or country that boycotts Israel she will in response build a roadblock cutting off Palestinian civilian centers. That’s right, all the road blocks that have been removed should selectively be replaced each time someone or some company gives in to the obscene boycott movement.

Each time this happens the IDF should inform the Palestinian community that the roadblock, or whatever measure Israel decides to take to hurt Palestinian daily life, is a direct result of the boycott against Israel. In fact, they should name each road block after the company or organization which divested itself of support for Israel!

President Obama must know that Israel will no longer tolerate the PA and their thugs thinking they can get away with cutting off Israel’s freedoms and financial well being through boycott.

Those who wish to delegitimize, demonize and attack Israel must know the price won’t just fall on Israel. There will be the English Presbyterian road block, the Elvis Costello check point, the Gil Scott Herron blockade.

President Obama can start by calling up his old pal Rashid Khalidi and demand that he stop funding -- at once -- a flotilla aimed at supporting the Hamas regime in GAZA. Khalidi’s borderline treacherous attempts at creating an American Gaza flotilla will not look good for the President or the Democrats.

At the end of the day President Obama must apply to Mahmoud Abbas the same pressure he did to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: he must demand an immediate return to direct negotiations with NO preconditions from either side.

Thursday, July 29, 2010


By Schmoel Yitzhak

Film-maker Oliver Stone may know more than a little about the cinema but like so many liberals opposed to Israel, he knows nothing about either common sense nor basic history.

Among other things, Stone has been preaching a "Be kind to Ahmadinejad" homily.

He regards the Iranian government as something akin to the Boy Scouts of America.

Stone demeans the Holocaust by suggesting that the Russians suffered more during World War II at the hands of the Nazis and therefore the Jewish tragedy should be minimized.

No one would dare minimize the Soviet Union's death toll of over 20 million during that conflict but to infer -- as Stone had done -- that six million Jewish deaths at the hands of Adolf Hitler is small potatoes reveals the magnitude of Jew-hating in the man's mind.

There were approximately 12 million Jews in the world prior to Pearl Harbor. By the time peace was restored in 1945, about half that number was left. One could not make that statement about Russia which was left with so much of its population intact.

In a feeble attempt to "atone" for his sinful remarks recently made to the Times of London, Stone offered a muted apology through his public relations firm. It hardly was worth the paper on which it was written.

Once again, the Israel-bashing damage had been done and it reminds me of a recent comment by Gil Troy in the Jerusalem Post.

"We're living in a topsy-turvy moral universe," wrote Troy.

In reference to Stone's observations, I'll borrow one of Troy's other two words -- "moral idiocy."

As Troy so aptly notes, "While Israel gets bashed, tremendous leniency is afforded Islamism."

The latter quote reminds me of the attempt to build a huge mosque near Ground Zero in New York.

If approved, the mosque would rise in the shadow of the World Trade Center site where a group of jihadists killed more than three thousand Americans while blasting to nothingness an American landmark.

As far as I can tell, no official connected with the mosque project has publicly endorsed the State of Israel.

There has been no affirmation from the American Muslims behind the Ground Zero mosque project that Israel even has a right to exist.

Then again, we haven't heard anything of the kind from the Palestinian Authority and certainly not from Hamas.

Interestingly, some of the most sensibly logical commentary has come from Newt Gingrich in a logic-filled statement related to the projected mosque.

"There should be no mosque near Ground Zero," comments Gingrich, "so long as there are no churches nor synagogues in Saudi Arabia.

"The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over."

We'll add a bit of editorial license to Newt's final three words.

Instead of "is," we'll replace it with "should be over."

Unfortunately, facts on the ground and on the airwaves tell us it is not over.

As long as Israel is bombarded with moral idiocy thanks to the likes of Stone, double standards will remain until Christians and Jews are allowed to enter Mecca.

Tragically, this double standard favoring the Islamists is about as likely to be reversed as the Nile River will go dry tomorrow night!

Wednesday, July 21, 2010


I LOVE my adopted home, Israel.

When I decided ten years ago to make Israel my home, many thought I was crazy.

Yes , I was doing something totally out of the box by making this move from New York to Israel. But I have never regretted the choice of making Aliya (immigrating to Israel).

Israel is a country of wonder. Her beautiful scenery, multi-cultured society and democratic freedom make her amazing, and as the Jewish State she is totally unique.

Israel’s history is enough to blow a solid adventurer’s mind away. Archaeological sites from the mountain fortresses of Masada, Gamla and Nimrod’s “castle,” to the Western Wall of Jerusalem and ancient “tels” scattered throughout the country are awe-inspiring. It seems every time a shovel goes into the ground to build a new structure, the remains of an ancient one appear.

Today all the marvels and wonders of Israel that comprise but a portion of her greatness are suppressed.

Sadly, my country has been forced to fight over more than six decades for survival, against Arabs states that have denied Israel her right to exist. Since birth Israel has been treated as a nation Ghetto. We have fought wars; now we have tried to fight for peace with these same Arab states, but to no avail.

A smear campaign that denies the Jewish nation’s right to self-determination is being waged. Instead of recognizing Israel for her beauty, her freedoms, her multi-cultured, anti-apartheid society, many will try to sell you a bag of used goods.

These people do not respect Israel’s intense, democratic institutions, no matter how obvious the facts. No, these people do not wish to see all that Israelis have built through their ingenuity.

Yes, our country is physically beautiful, but so are the citizens of Israel.

This is what bothers me more than anything: we Israelis want peace; have done way too much to attain it; yet this horrible smear campaign -- not simply directed at our government --is now directed at us, the people of Israel.

We are portrayed as a people who love occupying the Palestinians, when in reality this has been proven false on numerous occasions.

It is Israelis who created the Oslo Accords. It is Israelis who voted in Ehud Barak in the late Nineties, in the hope of reaching a final peace accord.

How many nations would be willing to endure constant wars from both the Arab world and the Palestinians Arabs? Yet the majority of us are also ready and willing to give the Palestinians the HEARTLAND (Judea and Samaria) of Jewish history, just to reach peace between our nations.

Do not believe the lies; please disregard the falsehoods about Israel. Do not be bamboozled by those who seek to trick you with venomous deceit.

If you want to know and understand Israel, come visit her. Come see our vibrant, beautiful, free and democratic country.


Tuesday, July 20, 2010


Why The Delegitimization of Israel is a Racist and Anti-Semitic Policy-

Today there is a movement to delegitimize the state of Israel, brand her an apartheid nation and force upon her a one-state solution.

The people behind this movement are sophisticated in their propaganda and malicious in their intent.

Israel is both the Jewish nation and a democratic state at the same time (the only democracy in the entire Middle East). All of her citizens have the right to vote -- Israeli Arabs, Bedouin, Druze and Circassians included.

The Arab Muslim population of Israel has far more rights than in any other country in the entire Arab/Muslim world, an indisputable fact. There are thirteen Arab and five Druze members in the Knesset. In Apartheid South Africa black Africans were not allowed to vote at all.

The Arab Israeli population is free to live, work and play where they want in Israel. The fact that most Israeli Arabs elect to live in discreetly separate villages is a matter more of historical, cultural, tribal and/or religious choice, but under Israeli law, they are legally free to live anywhere. Some do, and in the Lebanon conflict of 2006, Israeli Arabs were bombed – in Haifa and in many outlying villages and orchards in the North, which is heavily populated with Druze, Circassians and Israeli Arabs of so-called “Palestinian” descent.

Israeli Arabs can marry Jewish Israelis. In Apartheid South Africa black Africans were not allowed to go to white beaches, were not allowed to use white public bathrooms, were not allowed to marry whites, were not allowed to drink from white water fountains, etc. The black South Africans were totally segregated from the white community by law.

The Occupied Territories-

In the occupied territories the Palestinian population has the right to vote for their government, and have twice. However, much to the vocal dismay of some misled, left-leaning activists the Palestinian population cannot move about and live their lives as freely as they had in the past.

Why is that?

In 2000, at the Taba negotiations Yasser Arafat was offered full peace, including a Palestinian State on 95-97% of the land of Judea and Shomron (or the West-bank as it is wrongfully called by many today), Arab sections of East Jerusalem, the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City and all of Gaza.

Yassar Arafat turned this offer of peace down; Arafat turned down the formation of the Palestinian State. He did this because he wanted everything, not just Palestine: he wanted Israel too.

He insisted that Israel accept the unacceptable: the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel. The idea of Israel taking responsibility for a war started by the Arab population of Mandate Palestine and the neighboring Arab states is totally insane. The “refugees” created by this war can be attributed mostly to the Arab nations that started it. It is a known fact, admitted by many Arabs of the time, that they urged the Arab population of Palestine to flee. Here are some quotes.

ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), as saying: "The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."

ON APRIL 23, 1948 Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine AHC told the UN Security Council, "The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce ... They preferred to abandon their homes, belongings and everything they possessed."

IN THE MARCH 1976 issue of Falastin a-Thaura, then the official journal of the Beirut-based PLO, Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen", now Prime Minister of the West Bank PA), then a PLO spokesman, wrote: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

ON APRIL 9, 1953, the Jordanian daily al-Urdun quoted a refugee, Yunes Ahmed Assad, formerly of Deir Yassin, as saying: "For the flight and fall of the other villages, it is our leaders who are responsible, because of the dissemination of rumours exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... they instilled fear and terror into the hearts of the Arabs of Palestine until they fled, leaving their homes and property to the enemy."

These are but a few examples of Arab and Palestinians who attested to the fact that the majority of the Arabs fled the new state of Israel because they were told to by their leaders.

There were definitely situations where the newly formed IDF entered and pushed out Arab communities, but in most cases this was a small proportion. With few exceptions, most of these situations were caused by local Arab populations giving refuge to Arab fighters who were attacking Jewish communities, rendering them viable military targets. What you also do not hear about are the atrocities committed by the arabs against Jewish communities during the Israeli War of Independence. There were far more of these!

In fact there were more Jewish refugees created after the Israeli War of Independence when they were robbed of all their lands and possessions and thrown out of Arab countries. There were a total of 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, compared to 700,000 Arab refugees.

We do not hear about the Jewish refugees today because Israel, unlike surrounding Arab nations and North African Muslim countries, opted to follow the UN partition and managed to win its independence. Israel also then settled these refugees instead of keeping them in refugee camps as the Arabs have done.

One must also remember that neither Jordan nor Egypt allowed the Palestinians, whose areas they were occupying, their independence. Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem (razing the entire Jewish quarter of the Old City during the War of Independence); Egypt the Gaza strip. They easily could have given the Palestinians their independence. In both cases it was easier to keep these supposed Arab brethren locked up in refugee camps, fomenting hate and creating another generation to fight and kill Jews.

Why would the Palestinian leadership want to have their refugees settle in a state that is not theirs? Why wouldn’t they want to settle their refugees in their newly formed state? The only reason for this policy is the unquestionably bigoted and monomaniacal intent to destroy the state of Israel; to wipe out the Jews.

Monday, July 19, 2010


By Schmoel Yitzhak

The cover of my computer is adorned with one of my favorite bromides. It goes like this:

"Faith Sees The Invisible; Believes The Incredible And Receives The Impossible."

When it comes to the sudden Benjamin Netanyahu-Barack Obama infatuation, I would like to -- at the very least -- believe the incredible.

Superficially, at least, it would appear that Israel's prime minister and Uncle Sam's president have made "nice" and Israeli-American relations, at last, have taken a turn for the better.

Certainly, the ooze of good feeling that emanated from the White House was conducive to seeing the invisible.

But my mind would not allow me to envision such a romantic thought.

After all, none of us who care about Israel can forget the first horrendous Bibi-Barack meeting.

Israel's leader was treated a bit worse than a fugitive from a 19th Century leper colony.

If the leader of a staunch ally ever was humiliated any worse than Bibi in that infamous tete-a-tete, you would be hard-pressed to find a better example.

But, as my dear mother liked to say, "Time is a healer" and, sure enough, it appeared that time actually was the salve to sooth this egregious scar on Israel's political face.

Or, was it?

Time may have helped, to be sure, but let's get away from the cliches and revert to reality.

Obama's original impudent behavior toward Netanyahu caused tremors both in Israel and America.

I'm talking about the negative kind that politicians experience faster than the average Joe or Yussel.

In a year when the president's already-shaken Democratic party faces an across-the-board facial slap at the Autumn polling places, Barack The Bully has come to realize that a sizeable bloc of American Jews have taken a dim view of his harsh handling of Bibi.

As the president's popularity plummeted across the 50 states -- not to mention throughout Israel -- Obama had to pull out all stops to reverse the traumatic trend.

What better ploy than a second -- this time de luxe, or as Dr. Seuss would have put it Super-Duper-A-La-Peter T. Hooper -- invite to the White House for Israel's leader?

For a sweet change, Bibi would not be segregated to the back of the White House bus; he actually could enter via the front door.

And just to add icing to the wedding cake, Obama's handlers turned the event into a People magazine-type p.r. front-pager to (hopefully) ensure that the fast-growing anti-Obama Jewish clique re-thinks its doubts about the president.

According to polls both in Israel and the States, the second rose-strewn Bibi visit has done precious little to convince dubious Jews that Obama REALLY is adopting a genuinely pro-Israel policy.

Skeptics like Your's Truly vividly recall the president's cheery pro-Israel homilies before the election and, more importantly, know how they were as phony as the barker's blather in front of a Coney Island freak show.

Obama likes to boast about "transparency" in government. Well, we can see right through this latest bit of phony hospitality.

The super-cordial treatment of Bibi will have a short shelf life a political romances go.

With luck it will last until Election Day and then the president -- you can put this on your fridge for future reference -- will turn his back on Israel as emphatically as he had before this brief love affair was inspired by Democratic Party expediency.

Evaluating Obama's overt overtures to Netanyahu, the Jerusalem Post's Sarah Honig accurately likened it to the hit tune of yesteryear, "Paper Moon."

How well I remember the intro: "Oh, it's only a Paper Moon, just as phony as it can be."

Nice try, Mister Prez, but you're about as transparent as that Paper Moon.

In this case, I don't expect to "receive the impossible."

A genuine thaw in Israeli-American relations is not in the cards during the Obama administration.

And if I'm wrong, I'll be the happiest guy between Washington and Jerusalem!

Thursday, July 15, 2010


If we lived in a perfect world this is the letter the people of Israel would have received on their Sixty-Second Independence day from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Dear Israelis,

I am writing this to you to do finally what all of my predecessors have failed to do: to apologize to the citizens of the State of Israel and the Jewish Nation for the pain and anguish we the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim world have caused you.

We have been dishonest with you from the beginning. We have done all we can to deny you your unquestionable right to the land of Israel.

The dishonesty goes back to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al Husseni who worked with Hitler during World War Two, staying with him in Berlin throughout the War.

Husseni’s perfidy extended to raising Nazi SS brigades for Hitler and creating his own version of the “Final Solution” for the Jews of the Palestine Mandate. That means we, the Palestinians, sided and aided the Nazis and were very much a cog in the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust.

We the Palestinians cannot apologize enough for this.

After the crimes he committed during World War Two, Haj Amin next organized the Hebron and Arab riots of Palestine, causing the deaths of hundreds of Jews. The Hebron riots also led to the forceful expulsion -- by Arabs -- of the Jews who were the majority in the city until that moment.

Instead of compromising as you did and accepting the UN partition of the Palestine Mandate, we opted for war, promising to annihilate you. We wished for nothing more than to throw you into the sea, exactly as our leaders promised us. We misjudged your determination then, as we have many times since.

Because of our mistakes we have never achieved our national goal of statehood. Because of our mistakes we have created the Palestinian refugee problem. The mistakes that we, the leaders of the Palestinian Nation, have made are the root cause of the Middle-East conflict.

Worst of all, we have never taken responsibility for the actions that have caused so much pain to both of our peoples. We are a prideful people; because of this we have tried to blame you instead of taking responsibility for what we have wrought.

Not only have our mistakes caused thousands of Israeli deaths, they have also caused thousands of our own people to die.

So, I Mahmoud Abbas wish to apologize to the citizens of Israel. I also want to state that Israel has every right to exist and to exist as the Jewish State; not that you need me to say that.

For far to long we the Palestinians and the Arab nation have tried to erase the historical facts that make Israel yours. From the desecration of the Temple Mount. when we built the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksa mosque, to burning the Jewish Quarter of the old city to the ground during the Israeli War of Independence.

I hope that by accepting these responsibilities and by apologizing, we can now move towards achieving peace between our two peoples.

With Utmost Sincerity, I am

Mahmoud Abbas,
Palestinian Authority

Sunday, July 11, 2010


By Schmoel Yitzhak

When it comes to coverage of Israel, the Lost Continent of Journalism was called Integrity

In the 21st Century, it has been replaced by the New World of coverage named Duplicity.

The journalistic island of Integrity featured newspapers, magazines and television stations which accented objective reporting without agendas.

But, now in the world of Duplicity, once-respected journals, such as The New York Times, have published stories so biased against Israel it’s a wonder the editors have the gall to inspire such stories.

Most recently, the alleged “newspaper of record” ran an exhaustive article – purported to be an expose – about American-based tax-free contributions to Israeli “settlements.

Two egregious journalistic sins were committed by its trio of authors.

For starters, The Times ran the piece as its lead article precisely on the day that Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Barack Obama at The White House.

It was no coincidence that out of 365 days of the year, its editors chose the one day that Bibi was visiting Obama to embarrass Netanyahu with an anti-Israel headliner.

Only the thoroughly naïve would believe otherwise.

If that wasn’t a deliberate bit of newspaper chicanery, it was only topped by the overwhelming – misleading – slant of the article.

Nowhere did the reportorial corps mention that an equal amount of tax-free contributions have been funneled by American-based, left wing organizations to anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian organizations.

Once again, the Times violated the tenets of Journalism 101 – get the other side of the story.

If that were a mere aberration in today’s Middle East coverage, it might be overlooked but, alas, it has become the norm.

This has been proven over and over by Turkey’s leaders but creates special attention in America when a headliner nut case blows her cover.

Most recently, it was Helen Thomas, the so-called “doyen” of the White House press corps, who suggested that Israelis should leave their country and “go home” to countries such as Poland and Germany which merely attempted to wipe out every living Jew during World War II.

What Thomas failed to understand – among many things – is that Israel is not a white, European country. More than half of its population is comprised of those uprooted from Arab lands.

“Anti-semitism as displayed by both Thomas and Turkey’s leaders,” writes Victor Davis Hanson in The National Review, “hinges upon focusing singularly on Israeli behavior and applying a standard to it that is never extended to any other nation.”

It would be gratifying if The Times, CNN, et. Al.. focused on the abusivd issues in Kashmir or how the Chinese have abused Tibet.

But neither those issues nor abuse of the Turkish Kurds – even Indians in Kashmir – seems to attract equal attention.

When will The Times run a Page One lead story on the more than half-million Jews – as Hanson points out – who were “ethnically cleansed from the major Arab capitals between 1947 and 1973.

“Each wave of expulsion cresting after a particular Mideast war. Again, few care to demonstrate for the plight of any of these people.”

The Turks rank among the most hypocritical when it comes to leveling accusations.

When will Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan explain how Turkey continues to keep Nicosia, Cyprus a split-city? Or question why his country refuses to allow Greeks to purchase land in the Turkish part of Nicosia?

Or should I ask why The New York Times doesn’t devote a three-reporter expose to these legitimately pressing issues?

But the answer is obvious.

Duplicity has scored a TKO over Integrity in Middle East reporting.


There are some popular myths connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that drive me berserk.

Myth number one: Israel not doing enough to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

A quote coming out of the Presbyterian Church’s General Assembly (the committee on creating bias and anti-Israel rhetoric) is a classic.

This is what Dottie Villesvik, a church elder from Everett Washington, had to say: "I fully support a state of Israel, but I also believe Israel's peace will not come until they seek peace with Palestinians,"

Where was Dottie in the year 2000 when the Palestinians were offered peace and statehood by Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton?

Are Dottie and the Presbyterian Church aware that the Palestinians quickly turned down this more than generous offer, opting instead for war?

Where were Dottie and her friends at the American Presbyterian Church when Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip and handed it over to the Palestinians?

How did the Palestinians respond to this? By shooting 8000 rockets into Southern Israel.

If the Presbyterian church is concerned about peace, why didn’t they call on the American government (and for that matter, the world) to stop all financial and political aid to the Palestinians after their heinous response to the Gaza Withdrawal?

The Presbyterian Church and people like Dottie are not really concerned with peace between Israel and Palestinians. If these kindly folks really wanted peace, they could be doing better things than divesting of and belittling the only democracy in the Middle-East.

For instance, the Presbyterians could be really innovative -- not to mention first on the old ecclesiastical block -- by demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish State! WOW, wouldn’t that be inspirational?

Second, they would do well to grasp that they will achieve nothing by divesting from Israel or calling on the American Administration to stop aid until Israel halts building in the settlements. Instead, this type of biased, uncontrolled, borderline-racist approach to Israel merely will make Israelis of all types and political leanings afraid of making concessions.

All this policy will do is give Israel and her people new grounds for uniting, and one thing I’m sure the Presbyterian Church doesn’t want is for a huge number of Jews to stop disagreeing among themselves!

Wednesday, July 7, 2010


By Schmoel Yitzhak

A couple of popular terms disgust me.

One is anti-semite.

It's too vague; not to the point.

The point is Jew-hating; that's what anti-semitism is all about so why not call it like it is?

An anti-semite is a Jew-hater; no more, no less; so let's do away with soft euphemisms, if you don't mind.

No less annoying to me -- annoying, by the way, is an understatement -- is the term settlement.

Sorry, I'm not referring to 19th Century outposts in North Dakota but rather 21st Century places where Jews live in Judea and Samaria.

What's with this "settlement" nonsense?

These "settlements" are not log cabins nor thatched huts on the prairie.

They are apartment houses, homes with lawns and garages; just the kind you would find in Manhattan, Levittown, Orange County and even County Cork in Ireland.

Because Jew-hating has become epidemic in our universe, homes in which Israeli Jews happen to live in the West Bank get dubbed "settlements."


Well for one thing it's a convenient way for the world's Israei-bashers to attempt to delegitimize the Middle East's only legitimate democracy.


To hell with that; these are Jews living in homes that they either built or are renting; no more, no less. They are not "settlers." They are Jewish people living in dwellings.

But so many of the world's politicians have trouble swallowing the idea of Jews living in Samaria and Judea that they feel obliged to refer to them as settlers.

Whether the term "settler" comes from the mouth of Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton, it is instantly equated with second-class citizen; or a person who does not belong in that home in that particular part of the land -- because he or she is Jewish.

So, until the "settler" label is erased from the media, the White House or any other house, I propose that every Arab living in Israel be dubbed "settler" as well.

With that, let the American president, should then demand a freeze on all Arab settlement construction in Israel.

Well, I can dream, can't I!

Friday, July 2, 2010


Being a supporter of Israel is not easy these days.

Writing in defense of my country often forces me to ask a couple of questions:

1. Why is it that we Israelis are forced to explain and defend our right to self-determination on an hourly basis?”

2. Why is Israel the only country in the world which inspires outsiders to continually question whether it has the right to even exist?

No one questions whether France has a right to exist as the “FRENCH” Republic. Same goes for Iran and innumerable other nations.

Do Western peace activists demand that the Islamic Republic -- which is not even close to being a democracy -- disregard its Islamic revolution? Not a chance!

When hundreds of thousands of Iranians challenged their government to give them true freedom these so-called peace activists -- alleged advocates of liberalism, freedom and democracy -- did nothing to help.

So why is the world so fixated on endlessly making unreasonable demands on the one and only democracy in the Middle-East, Israel?

Israel is a democracy. It is one that is in many ways far more democratic than Western Europe. Israel is even more democratic than the self-proclaimed democratic beacon of democracy, America.

Why must Israel spend its life battling for diplomatic and political life?

Friends tell me that even asking these questions is an exercise in frustration.

They insist that I am fighting a pointless battle. As one pal puts it, “The world hates Jews -- and Israel because she is the Jewish State.”

He has a point. But there’s a big BUT that must follow such logic.

I fervently believe that we Israelis must CONTINUE fighting to clear Israel’s name; otherwise we will be doing her a grave disservice. If we fail to reach out to the one or two out of ten listeners in the audience willing to hear our side then we have lost the battle.

I, for one, REFUSE TO LOSE!

It has become patently obvious that liberal, freedom-loving activists, who should by nature be Israel’s allies, are simply uninterested in seeing Israel in a positive light.

The condemnation that Israel receives on a daily basis is -- by any standard -- absurdly unfair, illogical and downright pathetic.

The fact that these supposed peace-minded, liberal activists dare call Israel an apartheid State is an example of how far these hypocrites will go to blame the Jewish State for the aggressive, imperialist attitude of both the Palestinians and the Arab world.

How is it that these allegedly fair-minded people overlook the fact that Israeli Arabs have far more rights in Israeli democracy than African Americans have in America?

How can these people disregard the fact that the Israeli Knesset has thirteen Arab members, and six Druse members? Knowing this fact, how dare they call Israel an apartheid State?

Their standard verbal crutch is Israel’s so-called “occupation” of the West Bank.

Sorry, but the West Bank was there -- for the Arabs’ asking.

After Israel defeated the Arabs in several wars, she made offer after offer of the West Bank to the Palestinians attempting to reach permanent peace.

Bear in mind that never has a LOSING side in a war received such a generous offer to end a conflict.

No matter what your political preference, history shows that Israel offered from 93% to 97% of the West Bank (a colonial, European name for the ancient, archeologically historical names of Judea and Samaria) to the losing Arabs.

On top of this East Jerusalem and the Christian and Muslim Quarters of the Old City also were put on a peace platter for the Palestinians. All of the Gaza Strip was to be included.

Only a racist or Jew-hater would say that this remarkably generous offer was unfair.

Tragically, the world is filled with those who wish to deny the Jewish Nation self-determination solely because it is a JEWISH state.

They wish to replace the only Middle Eastern country that has tirelessly worked for its minorities with one that would immediately tread on the rights of others. They wish to deny a majority its rights for a minority.

They wish to deny the Jewish Nation State its right to exist on the land that was the birthplace of this nation. Land that was stolen from the Jews by European and Arab imperialists invaders.

Why do these people insist on denying my children their rights to freedom?

It is all rooted in an ancient hatred of Jews.

I cannot accept this status quo. And that explains why I must persuade those who might see the light why Israel is right.

I believe that if you love freedom. If you love liberal values, than you must fight for Israel’s existence and demand that the world own up to its hatred of Jews.

If you truly, truly want peace than you must demand that the world hold the Arab World to account for its continuous (from the time of Mohammad) attempts at destroying the Jewish Nation and its historical rights to Israel.

Yes, the Palestinians should have a state.

But the bottom line is clear; it must not at the expense of Israel, the Jewish State!