When Was CBS Sold to Hamas?

During the current conflict between Israel and Hamas I’ve been watching, listening to and reading a wide variety of media. Mostly it’s been a pleasant surprise this time around. The BBC did a remarkable piece about all the false images claiming to show the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. Media outlets around the world picked up the story which highlighted the lies and propaganda in places that never report on it. France 24 showed IDF footage taken from one of Israel’s planes which showed a pilot calling off an airstrike because Hamas has put children on the roof to act as human shields which, once again, got a surprising amount of coverage in places where I least expected to see it. (Shown here with English subtitles.)

Just last night on CNN’s Crossfire former US Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich pronounced the calls for Israeli restraint in the face of relentless rocket fire from Hamas his “outrage of the day”. He pointed out: "If the United States had 1,000 rockets fired at us, would we show any restraint? Of course not. We would annihilate whoever did it." Paul Begala, the left wing commentator who normally debates Gingrich, first three words in response: “You're exactly right.” That is not what CNN viewers are used to seeing on Israel.

CBS has been as bad as the far left fringe outlets. Watching Holly Williams report on Gaza from Sderot I learned the most amazing things. For example, most Gazans were displaced from their homeland in 1948. Considering that the median age in Gaza is just 15 most Gazans have never seen Israel. They are the granchildren and great grandchildren of the actual refugees, but Ms. Williams clearly believes in inherited refugee status. Her main theme was that “Israel claims” it’s targeting terrorists but it’s really aiming for poor, innocent Palestinian women and children. Her reports show children going to hospital (some with no obvious injuries), wailing and screaming women, and rubble which supposedly was their homes. There usually is no mention of Hamas using human shields except for last night, when she had a Hamas spokesman on to claim that is a lie. No Israeli was included in any of her reports I've seen during the conflict.

If Ms. Williams does mention Hamas rockets briefly at the end of her report she makes sure to tell us that no Israelis have died and that Palestinians don’t have anything like Iron Dome to protect them. (One Israeli was killed today.) She apparently believes that rocket fire into Israel should be ignored. No mention of injuries and property damage gets into her reports. She needs to use all her time to convince us to pity the poor Palestinians.

If that Hamas spokesman had been given editorial control of the CBS News report he couldn’t have written more favorable propaganda. When I was young the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite was the most respected and trusted television newscast in America. That is no longer the case. Sadly journalistic standards and fairness have been entirely abandoned by CBS. Nowadays they are combatants in a media war against Israel, even when many mainstream left-leaning media outlets have decided they cannot participate this time around.

When It Comes To Jerusalem, The Washington Post and President Obama Rewrite History

The Washington Post had an article by Howard Schneider yesterday about the dispute over property in in Sheikh Jarrah, a small Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem. I have no problem with an article that presents both the Israeli and Palestinian side of a story like this. I have a huge problem with asserting facts which simply are not in evidence and skewing the picture in favor of one side, in this case the Palestinians.

The article plays fast and loose with the facts. For example, it states that

"Israel asserts its jurisdiction over the entire city -- including Arab areas it captured in a 1967 war and annexed in a step not recognized by the international community."

First, the United States did recognize all of Jerusalem as part of Israel in The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. In addition there are several countries which do have embassies in Jerusalem. To say that the "international community" as a whole doesn't recognize Israel's sovereignty over eastern Jerusalem is inaccurate. The international community is not monolithic and is divided on this issue unless, of course, you don't consider the United States part of the international community.

Yes, the Obama administration has protested the eviction of Arabs from Sheikh Jarrah. They argue that any change of the status quo undermines the peace process. Never mind that the land was taken by force from Jewish owners in 1948. Never mind that the United Nations, which moved the original 28 Arab families into the neighborhood, never obtained or provided any title to the property. Never mind that the families would have had tenancy rights and could not be evicted under Israeli law if they paid rent to the rightful owners. Never mind that the issue was decided through a very long legal process, complete with appeals and due process of law. None of those facts matter. The Obama administration has decided, in advance of any negotiation, that Jerusalem will be divided again. Never mind that President Obama has no say in the matter whatsoever, has no jurisdiction over Jerusalem, and is in effect ignoring American law.

Yes, the article does mention the Jewish ownership but it assumes that "East Jerusalem" is rightfully somehow Palestinian. Please read my post on the relevant parts of the history of Jerusalem from 2007. One point which every article like this ignores:

What made east Jerusalem Arab? 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation ending in 1967. In 1948 when Jordan captured the old, walled city they destroyed 58 synagogues. 58! I somehow don't think Arabs were worshiping in those synagogues. Yep, in 1948 there were still lots of Jews in "Arab East Jerusalem".

As the article correctly points out, Silwan, another eastern Jerusalem neighborhood embroiled in a property dispute, was a haven for Yemeni Jews in the 1800s. These were Jews escaping persecution in the Arab world. Why are changes which are a result of Jordanian occupation just fine while reversing those changes as a result of Israel capturing the eastern part of the city unacceptable? Somehow it's acceptable to ignore the fact that there were Israeli controlled enclaves in "East Jerusalem" between 1948 and 1967 and there never was a clean east/west division of the city.

Certainly the Obama administration is working under false assumptions when it comes to Jerusalem. The President of the United States should know better. Unfortunately, the position of his administration is nothing new. It is a continuation of misguided Bush administration policy. The last President who seemed to understand the history was Bill Clinton. How do those who claim that American Jews or a pro-Israel lobby have some sort of undo influence on U.S. foreign policy explain a decidedly pro-Palestinian position on an issue so critical not only to Israel but to Jewish identity as a whole?

The article assumes, like so many others, that "East Jerusalem" is Arab, period, end of story. To the Washington Post this clearly isn't open to debate. They even have the Office of the President agreeing with this incorrect assertion. History to the contrary is conveniently ignored. This is a sort of pernicious, almost hidden media bias in favor of the Palestinians and against Israel. Since the Washington Post is so well respected their assumptions become the assumptions of many in the American public. After all, who has the authority and credibility to challenge the Washington Post, especially when their misinformation is repeated at the highest levels of government?

A British Commander's Testimony On The Goldstone Report and Gaza

The Goldstone Report is, unfortunately, once again in the news day in and day out. The usual media outlets and organizations who work to demonize and delegitimize Israel are once again treating it as a statement of fact rather than a biased and one sided political propaganda piece. This despite the fact that the Obama administration condemned the report as, in the words of U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell, "one-sided and deeply flawed". The critics of Israel never mention, as a Miami Herald editorial did, that Operation Cast Lead followed "eight years of relentless rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups." Daily rocket attacks against civilians in Israel continue to this day without one word of protest from the international community.

I know many in the world see the United States as hopelessly biased in Israel's favor. The British, on the other hand, have not exactly had warm relations with Israel lately and, indeed, the U.K. has been the country with the highest level of anti-Semitism in Europe. Perhaps the testimony of a high ranking British military officer will be a bit more convincing.

Colonel Richard Kemp served as commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. He previously has served as a commander in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia. UN Watch has provided not only video of his October 16, 2009 testimony but also translations into nine languages. Here are some of his most salient points:

During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

[...]

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

I urge everyone to read or watch Col. Kemp's full testimony and pass it on to anyone who quotes the Goldstone report as some sort of evidence of Israeli war crimes.

Iran: "A Moment Of Truth", CNN Style

This article is part of this week's Jerusalem Post Submission Contest. You can rate my post and affect the outcome of the contest here.


Last Sunday Fareed Zakaria, the host of GPS on CNN, opened his program with an analysis of the Iranian nuclear crisis. He started by saying:

A moment of truth is arriving on the Iran Issue. Western countries will have to face up to the fact that there are only really two choices with Iran: one, a military strike, effectively preventing the country from continuing to expand its nuclear capacity; or, secondly, learning to live with such a capacity."

Up to this point Zakaria was 100% correct in his assessment. The current talks with the Iranian regime have produced no concrete results and based on comments by the Iranian government they never will. I can understand why President Obama wants to give diplomacy every reasonable chance at success. If nothing else it provides the U.S., and perhaps by extension Israel, some diplomatic cover with the rest of the West when the inevitable war with Iran comes.

Zakaria went on to describe some of the consequences of a strike by either the U.S. or Israel on Iran. Once again he was spot on:

Now, I think striking Iran would have the first effect of uniting the country behind the regime. It happens in every country that is attacked from abroad. George w. Bush's approval ratings on September 10, 2001, were around 40 percent. In one month, after 9/11, they had risen to 93 percent. Iranian dissidents warn that the day after an American attack or an Israeli attack, they would all have to come out in support of the regime.

The political spillover from such an attack in Arab countries would also be large, and the military spillover in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iran still funds militias, would probably take the lives of American and European soldiers. The price of oil would skyrocket, and, at best, such a military strike would delay the Iranian program, not end it, and probably delay it by just a few years.

It's all true. Indeed, the consequences to both Israel and some Sunni Arab nations, which Iran would likely attack to disrupt oil supplies, would be very high indeed. Let's also not forget the loss of innocent lives among Iranian civillians. Iran has placed it's nuclear and missile launching facilities in populated areas. Yes, the cost of a war with Iran will be terrible for all involved and many nations will get dragged in.

The rest of Zakaria's analysis is seriously flawed. Worse, it seems to reflect and reinforce the thinking of some in the Obama adminstration, which makes it downright dangerous. Zakaria continued:

Is it possible to live with a nuclear Iran? I would argue yes. Living with it is not a passive option. Iran's behavior will make it possible to maintain, perhaps even expand, sanctions on it. It will strengthen western resolve and, more importantly, make most Arab states ally themselves far more closely with the United States and Europe than ever before. The great strategic threat in the region would no longer be Israel but Iran.

These countries, the Arab countries, would make vigorous efforts to contain Iran's influence militarily and politically, as would western nations. We could press for more sanctions, inspections of all kinds. And, finally, Israel's vast nuclear arsenal, 250 nuclear weapons by most accounts, plus that of the United States would act as a deterrent on Iran. It would not use its nuclear weapons because it would clearly trigger an overwhelming response.

This is not a perfect option. But, in the real world, it seems to me a far more sensible one than a gamble that attacking Iran would solve this problem.

I don't believe for one moment that the Islamic religious fanatics who run the Iranian regime would be deterred by Israel's weaponry or any likely retaliation.

Former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, often referred to as a "moderate" in the press, called for a nuclear attack on Israel on December 14, 2001. His comments included the following:

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world

We are all aware of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's repeated calls to destory Israel. For the Iranian leadership this is an ideological and religious imperatives. Against such imperatives conventional deterrence simply does not work.

Zakaria went on to interview three "distinguished experts", none of whom expressed the idea that Israel may have no choice but to preemptively strike Iran to avoid their own destruction. When PBS' Newshour With Jim Lehrer has a panel on issues like this they make sure to have all views represented. Even unabashedly left-wing MSNBC has had balanced panels where the idea that Israel may have absolutely no choice but to act if it is to survive has been clearly voiced. Not so on CNN. I couldn't help but remember a discussion some years ago on CNN hosted by Christiane Amanpour where her idea of differing viewpoints, left and right, meant that she had Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Carter administration National Security Advisor, a Democrat, and Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security Advisor to President George H. W. Bush, a Republican, as her guests. Both men are notoriously anti-Israel and spent significant parts of the segment complementing each other's analysis of why everything wrong in the Middle East is Israel's fault. Zakaria's guests weren't so blatant but none disagreed with Zakaria's analysis.

In his next segment Zakaria went on to interview Judge Richard Goldstone of the infamous Goldstone report, a report widely seen as denying Israel any reasonable right of self-defense.

CNN no longer seems to be engaging in the in-your-face anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attacks like the August, 2007 two hour "Special Investigations" piece called "G-d's Jewish Warriors", also hosted by Christiane Amanpour. They have learned to be slightly more subtle. Still, there is no mistaking the purpose of a program that first presents the awful consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran and then trots out the Goldstone Report, no matter how reasonable and erudite the smiling Mr. Zakaria may seem.

CNN may be willing to gamble the lives of 7.28 million Israelis, both Jewish and Arab, on the belief that the Iranian regime is sane and can be deterred. They may be willing to gamble the lives of my family in Israel. Americans should not be. First, friends don't ask friends to die in a nuclear holocaust. Second, once Israel is gone, can some attempt to destroy "The Great Satan" be far behind? Didn't President Ahmedinejad chair a conference on the world without the United States? If deterrence doesn't work as Mr. Zakaria suggests it would what would the consequences for all of the West be?

We need to remember CNN's long history of anti-Israel bias and take all their reporting on the Iranian nuclear threat with an appropriately large grain of salt. We need to remember that the CNN agenda will undoubtedly include blaming Israel for any and all consequences of a conflict with Iran.

On Gaza: It's Time The World Sees What American Leaders See So Clearly

Last July President-elect Barack Obama visited Sderot, the Israeli town which has suffered most from Hamas rocket attacks eminating from Gaza. His words then were clear and unequivocal:

If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.

In terms of negotiations with Hamas, it is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other countries.

President Bush has been equally clear. On Monday he spoke about the current fighting:

The situation now taking place in Gaza was caused by Hamas. Instead of caring about the people of Gaza, Hamas decided to use Gaza to launch rockets to kill innocent Israelis. Israel's obviously decided to protect herself and her people.

Democratic leaders in Congress have been almost uniformly taking exactly the same position. This is perhaps the one and only issue in American politics today where there is no partisan divide. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has been a particularly forceful voice:

Israel is acting in clear self-defense in response to heinous rocket attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza. As a sovereign nation, Israel has an unequivocal right to take action to ensure the security and safety of her citizens. Indiscriminate attacks by Hamas are a serious detriment to the peace process in the region.

There are very few, even among Israel's harshest critics, who would deny the fact that the current crisis was started by unprovoked rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas. They, however, ignore this issue, reciting tired old lines about Palestinian grievances against Israel to justify Hamas terrorism and decry "Israeli aggression". The usual suspects on the far left and in the international media highlight Palestinian deaths and show us pictures of crying Palestinian children to tug at the heartstrings and turn public opinion against Israel. Outside the United States and Canada they have largely succeeded.

Maintream American media, thankfully, has been more balanced. CNN's Anderson Cooper showed the same disturbing images from Gaza but followed them with photos of Hamas rockets and destruction in southern Israel. PBS program "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer" has, as always, shown both sides of the conflict. This seems to me to be the main reason why American public opinion is so different from that in the rest of the world. Americans have all the facts at their disposal, something those who rely on more biased media simply do not have.

The most interesting reaction has been from the Arab world. Oh, the streets and most media outlets have been denouncing Israel steadily, using extreme language and exaggeration together with graphic images to stoke passions against the Jewish state. This is to be expected. Every Israeli action is a new "genocide" or "holocaust". Those words have been so cheapened in that part of the world that they have almost lost any meaning, a tragedy in and of itself.

The reaction from Arab leaders has been far more muted for good reason. Moderate, mainly Sunni Arab leaders know that Hamas is their enemy as well and a proxy for Iran. Douglas Bloomfield, writing in the Jerusalem Post, calls these leaders "Israel's reluctant allies:"

From this tendency of Arab leaders to speak out of both sides of their mouths, one might get the impression that they suffer from a collective case of schizophrenia, but it's actually fear mixed with hypocrisy.

None of these dictators is a candidate for the next edition of Profiles in Courage. They are scared of the influence of the militant Islamists and the popularity of the Palestinian cause on the Arab street. Iran and its allies have focused on creating animosity to the entrenched and repressive Sunni regimes which, in the age of satellites and the Internet, can no longer turn public emotions on and off like a water tap.

That's why they are praying so hard for an Israeli victory.

Defeating Hamas now will certainly result in a tragic loss of life. Many innocent people, the majority of them Palestinians, will certainly die. However, it is time that the bleeding hearts on the left in both North America and Europe realize that dislodging Hamas now will prevent repeats of this war and bloodshed in the future and might, just maybe, revive some slim hope for peace in the future. In the long run letting Israel finish what it has started will save lives. My biggest fear is that world leaders, including American leaders, will allow images from Gaza and public sentiment to sway them into pressuring Israel to end the conflict prematurely.

I also ask those who only mourn Palestinian casualties to think about President-elect Obama's words. What would you want your government to do if missiles were raining down on your home and your family? Can any of you honestly say that you wouldn't want your government to do anything and everything necessary to stop the rockets and save your family?

Another "Massacre" That Wasn't

On Tuesday approximately 50 rockets and mortars slammed into Israel from Gaza wounding five Israelis. Yesterday 40 more rockets were fired into Israel, injuring 10 people, all civilians. The Israeli Air Force responded and eight Palestinians, including three civilians, were killed in air strikes yesterday.

In recent days the usual suspects have been crying "massacre" and blaming Israel for derailing the peace process. For those who always blame Israel for all the ills in the Middle East the facts simply don't matter. It doesn't matter that Israel wouldn't have taken any action against Gaza at all if rockets weren't raining down on Israeli cities and towns. It doesn't matter that the Israeli military never deliberately targets civilians and that most of those killed in Gaza recently were Hamas gunmen or Islamic Jihad terrorists who were firing the rockets. It doesn't matter that the Qassam and Katyusha rockets are always aimed at Israeli civilians. After all, there was no international outcry when a Qassam rocket struck a kindergarten near Ashkelon. If a Palestinian child is tragically killed, though, the world cries and condemns Israel. Why does nobody condemn the Palestinian terrorists who fire on Israel from heavily populated civilian areas? International law clearly places the brunt of responsibility on those using human shields.

Despite President Bush's rather delusional assertion that peace could be achieved in a year I don't think anyone in Israel believes anything like that is remotely possible. Perhaps Prime Minister Olmert is shrewder than we give him credit for being. He makes all the requisite conciliatory speeches to keep President Bush and the American Congress happy while adding that there will be no peace while terrorism continues. He knows there is, at present, no Palestinian leader strong enough or even willing to do anything about terrorism.

Technorati Tags: israel gaza gaza massacre qassam rockets palestine palestinians media bias peace process terrorism middle east