The Arab mind at work….the once respectable, now antisemitic Haaretz newspaper…the French claim sovereignty in Yosh…
Phantom Nation 19Sept2016 – PODCASTIsrael News Talk Radio
The Arab mind at work….the once respectable, now antisemitic Haaretz newspaper…the French claim sovereignty in Yosh…
Phantom Nation 19Sept2016 – PODCASTIsrael News Talk Radio
Ha’aretz writer Yotam Berger, who on Monday reported on the new housing construction project planned for Jewish Hebron, followed his story with a tweet addressed to @White-House, in which he noted (in Hebrew), “For your information, the State is planning new construction in the Jewish settlement in Hebron.” Although it’s puzzling why Berger didn’t tweet in English, or ask someone at the paper’s English language website to help him translate, the panicky urgency of the tweet is unmistakable.
Monday’s report was followed Tuesday morning with a leading editorial titled, “Provocation in Hebron,” which warns that “Hebron is a permanent focal point for tension and confrontations between Jews and Palestinians. Any change in the urban structure and any additional Jewish presence in the city would only increase the potential for violence and the Palestinian protest. Those who complain day and night about Palestinian incitement cannot wash their hands of responsibility when they approve a construction project that is unmatched in its capacity to cause rage and hatred.”
The same editorial accuses Israel of “robbing lands” and Prime Minister Netanyahu of lying when he says he wants to negotiate peace because he is creating facts on the ground that would increase the demand for concessions on the PA.
The part about robbing lands is a purely pro-Arab perspective on the acquisition of the land for the new construction. The fact is that Ha’aretz’s own report on Monday cites Hebron spokesman Noam Arnon, who said the lands to be used have been owned by Jews since before 1948. “The area has always been known as belonging to the Jewish community, and if they return to living there I’m sure every justice-loving person would rejoice about it,” Arnon said.
What Ha’aretz and Peace Now, as well as the Arabs, are objecting to is the fact that in a situation where the slated area is comprised of Jewish owned lands and lands that were confiscated by the IDF back in 1983, the Jews will win out. The Jewish owned land will be turned into Jewish housing, while the confiscated land — where the city of Hebron used to maintain a central bus station that has been relocated in 1983 — that land remains confiscated.
So, according to Ha’aretz, the Jews who utilize their legally owned lands are robbers, because the IDF is holding on to lands that were confiscated from the Arab municipality.
The Israeli Supreme Court in 1979 ruled that land that was confiscated by the IDF for military purposes cannot be turned over for Jewish settlement. And so Ha’aretz, the anti-Israel NGOs and, supposedly, some Arabs, are implying that the Jews of Hebron have somehow violated the court ruling, which they never have done.
The decision to permit new housing construction in H2 (the Jewish sliver of Hebron) was made under the Moshe Ya’alon administration at the Defense Ministry, and it has now been confirmed by his successor, Avigdor Liberman. It isn’t clear how many housing units can be pushed into the area, which is about half an acre, including the military-confiscated parts which are verboten. Unless they build a high riser, the common land use for half an acre of suburban housing is between 15 and 25 units. If that many homes for Jews have the power to derail peace negotiations then maybe Israel should think the entire peace process on account of facing unimaginably rigid partners.JNi.Media
A PA Arab prisoners’ committee on Monday announced that Israel had agreed to hand over for burial the bodies of Arab terrorists still in its possession. The announcement did not mention a specific timeframe for returning the bodies, save for that of Muhammad Jamal al-Kalouti, 21, who was shot dead by police in March together with Abd al-Malak Saleh Abu Kharoub, 19, outside the Old City of Jerusalem.
Attorney Muhammad Mahmoud of the prisoners’ committee Addameer said that Israeli authorities would release al-Kalouti’s body to his family on Wednesday.
On March 9, 2016, these two terrorists shot at a bus from a car at the Ramot Junction north of Jerusalem. The bus was not hit but shell casings were found at the scene. They then drove their vehicle to the Shechem Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem, and shot at police and civilians. Police returned fire and killed them. A passerby was seriously injured by police gunfire. Two rifles were found in the car. Both terrorists carried blue Israeli identity cards (Source: The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center).
According to Mahmoud, Israel agreed to release the body on the condition that the funeral be carried out at midnight Wednesday, with a maximum of 25 people attending, and that the body be buried in the al-Mujahidin cemetery near Herod’s Gate. According to the announcement, the family was charged $5,200 in fees for the processing of the body.
Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman has reversed the Israeli policy regarding the return of terrorists’ bodies to their families for burial, disregarding the recommendations from the security apparatus, including his predecessor Moshe Ya’alon (Likud). Liberman (Yisrael Beiteinu) preferred instead to embrace the contrary position of Internal Security Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud).
It should be noted that the Jack Khoury story in Ha’aretz on the Muhammad Mahmoud announcement, which was published at 1:17 AM Tuesday, was titled, “Israel agrees to hand over bodies of seven Palestinians killed in confrontations,” with the sub-headline, “Police agree to transfer the remains held for months after negotiations with families under pressure from Israel’s High Court, according to the Palestinian prisoner administration.” Even the first paragraph continued the obvious lie that the release of the bodies was an official Israeli decision. It read: “The Israel Police has agreed to hand over the bodies of seven Palestinians from East Jerusalem who were killed in confrontations with Israeli forces and which were held for a number of months, the Palestinian prisoner administration said on Monday.”
The headline has since been modified to read: “Israel Reportedly Agrees to Hand Over Bodies of Seven Palestinians Killed in Confrontations.” Now we have to wait and see what Israel has to say about it.JNi.Media
American-Israeli journalist Jeffrey Goldberg (New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly) is probably the closest thing today to a traditional, secular Jewish American journalist, hated equally by the right and the left. His view of Israel is sober, and he often gets the Israeli mindset more accurately than most American fellow travelers. On Monday night, Goldberg lost it over a story in the English language Ha’aretz, which has been consistently further out there on leftwing planet than its Hebrew language sister.
“I think I’m getting ready to leave Ha’aretz behind, actually,” Goldberg tweeted, linking to a Sunday Ha’aretz story titled “We’re American Jewish Historians. This Is Why We’ve Left Zionism Behind.”
Written by Hasia Diner and Marjorie N. Feld, the article included blatantly hostile statements, reminiscent of drivel issued by Neturei Karta and any of the varieties of “American Rabbis for Peace” groups out there. Taking into account that Diner is a professor of American Jewish history at New York University, and Feld is professor of history at Babson College, we should probably sit shivah on our expectations of sane evaluations of Israeli history emanating from those two learned ladies.
“The death of vast numbers of Jewish communities as a result of Zionist activity has impoverished the Jewish people, robbing us of these many cultures that have fallen into the maw of Israeli homogenization,” was one of Hasia Diner’s paragraphs, fit for a KKK Wizard.
And, another from Diner: “I feel a sense of repulsion when I enter a synagogue in front of which the congregation has planted a sign reading, ‘We Stand With Israel.’ I just do not go, and avoid many Jewish settings where I know Israel will loom large as an icon of identity.”
Hasn’t she heard the adage, If you don’t have nice things to say, don’t say anything?
Marjorie Feld, who wrote that “in all facets of my very Jewish upbringing I was immersed in Holocaust education,” taught her readers that “the founding of Israel was the Nakba, the great catastrophe, for Palestinians, with ethnic cleansing, destruction, and no right of return.”
Goldberg’s distancing himself from the rabid Ha’aretz crowd (in English — the Hebrew version may be aggressive, but it’s still quality journalism, just remove the attitude and you can figure out what really happened — the way folks used to do with Pravda, or Yisrael Hayom) was met with nasty responses from the nuts community.
Peter Kofod tweeted that Goldberg was “Warmonger/former prison guard who lied to cover up, is also an idiot re anti-Semitism”
He provided a link to a website called S.H.A.M.E. Project, which drags out the cherry picked negative comments from its target’s body of work, sans context (because context requires deliberation and examination, comparison and evaluation, which, like, take time). If the reader is interested, the disgusting hatchet job is up there.
Goldberg tweeted back: “I like a lot of the people at Haaretz, and many of its positions, but the cartoonish anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism can be grating.”
Thereafter, Goldberg entered a string of alley fights with short knives:
Seth Frantzman (Jerusalem Post) rehashed an old grievance: “Jeffrey Goldberg has accused me of ‘enabling baseless hatred’ when I’ve done more than most to help victims and refugees.”
Goldberg: “It’s difficult to acknowledge that you enable sinat hinam. I understand.”
Lisa Goldman: “Are there any women participating in Jeffrey Goldberg’s rumble in the jungle over Haaretz’s allegedly Jew hating ways? Right. Thought not.” Ah, discrimination, because the two history hate mongers were gals, and Goldberg is part of the patriarchy. She also suggested: “Haaretz friends: Jeffrey Goldberg is not that important. Clearly anyone who tweets it’s an *anti-Semitic* paper is an anti-intellectual.”
He works for the Atlantic, lady. You work for 972 Mag, a website only a shaheed’s mother can love.
At some point, Goldberg became entangled in a one-on-one with Ha’aretz publisher Amos Schoken, and tweeted a message of peace: “There’s a lot of good journalism in Ha’aretz, however. Mixed in with the nutty stuff.”
Schocken tweeted: “I wouldn’t call it nutty. I don’t agree with it, I think they ignore history of the Jews,” adding, “But when Israel has such problem in American universities, how can one ignore it?”
To which Goldberg snapped back: “Amos, what you don’t understand is that the problems on campus are caused in part by crap like this.”
Schocken: “Maybe it adds but it is a position of two university teachers, it has to be argued with, not discarded.” Ha’aretz is probably the only newspaper with decent-distribution in Israel that devotes equal if not more coverage to the Nakba point of view, versus the normative Israeli narrative.
At which point Ami Kaufman, co-founder of 972 Mag, tweeted, “How ‘Trump-esque’ to call a legitimate position ‘crap’ and ‘nutty.'” Then: “Israeli policies cause ‘problems’ on campuses, not the opeds that critique them.” Spoken like a man who never faced crowd-wilding by SJP thugs on his way to the dorms.
Goldberg: “That is not an accurate statement. Visit campuses, talk to university presidents, and learn.”
Goldberg tweeted a response to Ha’aretz correspondent Anshel Pfeffer: “Look, when neo-Nazis are emailing me links to Ha’aretz op-eds declaring Israel to be evil, I’m going to take a break, sorry.” He included a link to a column by Gideon Levy titled, “Stop living in denial, Israel is an evil state.” Gideon Levy is that shaheed’s mother’s other favorite read.
Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) entered the fray, quite unexpectedly, praising Goldberg: “Wow. No words.” Truth be told, a tweet on the back from a Likud cabinet minister was probably the last thing Goldberg needed at that moment, and he scolded Erdan: “Thanks for the retweet, but I’d prefer it if you spent more time protecting democracy in Israel.”
Gilad Erdan is Minister of Public Security, so, yes, he is in a good position to mess up or protect democracy in Israel. But why S.H.A.M.E. a man for being nice to you?
Yes, you can get the boy out of the red diaper summer camp, but not vice versa .JNi.Media
The News website Palestinian Information Center, which covers, among its regular beats, “Zionist Terrorism,” recently uploaded a cartoon it borrowed from fellow traveler Ha’aretz showing traditionally anti-Semitic depictions of Haredi politicians celebrating their control of budgets squeezed from secular Israelis.
The Hamas-oriented PIC added its own judgmental note, but didn’t need to alter the original visual message. It fit its world view perfectly.
H/T Ishay Friedman.David Israel
Ragnar Kjartansson is a widely exhibited Icelandic performance artist. In a 2002 work called Death and the Children, he dressed up in a dark suit and carried a scythe, leading young children through a cemetery, answering their questions. In a 2006 live performance titled Sorrow Conquers Happiness, he wore a tuxedo and played the role of a 1940s nightclub crooner with an orchestra, singing, “Sorrow conquers happiness” over and over as the music swelled. In 2011, Kjartansson won the inaugural Malcolm Award at Performa 11, the visual art performance biennial, for his 12-hour work Bliss, which was performed without a break at the Abrons Arts Center on the Lower East Side of Manhattan with repeated performances of the finale of Mozart’s “Marriage of Figaro,” the moment when the count gets down on one knee and asks his wife for forgiveness, which she grants in an aria. Icelandic tenor Kristjan Johannson played the count.
For his exhibition titled Architecture and Morality, at the Center for Contemporary Art in Tel Aviv this season, Kjartansson, according to a press release, was going to “create a new, ambitious body of paintings within the specific context of Israel. He will spend two weeks painting the urban landscapes in the West Bank ‘En plein air’ (a fancy French term the press release misspelled and which means ‘outdoors’) akin to his performative painting practice over the past few years.”
So Ragnar Kjartansson took his canvas and stand and paints and brushes and went en plein air to various Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and what he brought back was, well, not so bad. He painted what he saw (a paraphrase on the New Yorker’s surrealist Gahan Wilson’s book of horror cartoons), and apparently he saw none of the blood curdling evil normally associated with the term “settlements” on the corner of south Tel Aviv’s Tsadok Hacohen and Kalisher Streets, which is where the CCA is located.
Or, as Galia Yahav put it in Ha’aretz this weekend, “The houses are rendered separately, one per painting. All of them are drawn from the front and fill the canvas in the same way and from the same distance. The style is blatantly amateurish and naïve, as though from a hobby group, deliberately bland, with obedient brushstrokes and a filling of blank spaces, turgid coloration and pedantically mimetic attention to detail.”
But, most upsetting, from Yahav’s point of view, “the result is a small, suburban neighborhood of villas, completely artificial, in which little Israeli flags attached to parked cars wave in the breeze and larger ones flop from the windows of houses. Without addresses or names of specific settlements, this artistic tactic poses with feigned innocence in the likeness of a 19th-century pilgrimage, in which the Holy Land is portrayed through misty eyes.”
In other words, this cutting-edge performance artist, who was going to do to the settlements what Edvard Munch did the screaming, came away from those colonialist, apartheid-dispensing satanic neighborhoods with a fairly bland set of impressions, which is what one could expect from suburban bedroom communities anywhere.
“Perhaps the idea was to depict a generic quality of life rife with sated insensitivity – architecture as amorality,” Yahav tried to dig up some evil from under those middle class shaggy rugs. “Or perhaps it’s the realization of violent fantasy through painting: the occupied territories without Palestinians, a heaven on earth.”
Curator Chen Tamir wrote that Kjartansson’s settlements paintings “tell a story about the banality of everyday life amid complex political turmoil.” Maybe. But it ain’t in those paintings. Indeed, Tamir conceded that the entire Kjartansson exhibition “is a bold statement on art’s futility in the face of social and political strife.”
Or maybe, just maybe, the Icelandic artist discovered and then made a point leftwing art critics can’t afford to admit: that things in those Jewish settlements and in all of Judea and Samaria, just aren’t nearly as bad as they are in many other, more troubled places, such as London, Paris, Brussels, Nice and Istanbul.JNi.Media
“Sitting next to his parents, with a blank face, [Sergeant Elor] Azaria is realizing the defense arguments are collapsing,” Shabtay Bendet wrote in Walla last Thursday, on the trial of the medic who last Purim in Hebron shot to death an Arab Terrorist who had already been neutralized and was lying on the pavement. An Arab B’Tselem cameraman captured the incident, and as a result what would have ended in a disciplinary hearing for the shooter, at most, quickly turned into a murder charge which was then reduced to a manslaughter indictment by the IDF prosecutor.
“These last few days of hearings did not bode well for the soldier, accused of killing a terrorist,” wrote Bendet, as if the term “terrorist” was a kind of civilian occupation, and could be easily substituted with “housewife” or “driving instructor,” or “electrician.” Bendet continued: “One after the other the witnesses undercut the defense claim that the terrorist posed a real threat of carrying an explosive charge on his person. Meanwhile, Azaria and his family have been maintaining their silence, except for one outburst borne by the realization that things are not great [for them].”
Bendet’s report about how the prosecution has been winning the Azaria trial mirrors countless reports with a similar message which have saturated Israel’s media over the weekend. And, naturally, the further to the left the writer, the broader the implications of the Azaria manslaughter case regarding the entire Netanyahu government and its policies in Judea and Samaria.
Ravit Hecht criticized in Haaretz on Friday Azaria’s father’s emotional call on Prime Minister Netanyahu to intervene in hi son’s case. “The father is calling on the prime minister to, in effect, take action against the army,” she wrote. “The father is turning to the prime minister to sabotage the machinery of the very system with which he is trusted.”
Hecht then goes on to accuse Netanyahu of always sabotaging the systems he is trusted with, but it’s clear from her approach that a conviction in the Azaria case is the proper outcome, while, should the 19-year-old sergeant be acquitted, democracy would be in peril.
Bendet, for his part, misunderstands the central issue in this case, which has made it such a tough case for the prosecution, they had to go and recruit outside talent from Israel’s top litigation firm. The case depends not on the objective conditions near the Hebron check point on the morning of the incident and whether or not there was a realistic expectation of the terrorist carrying explosives on his body, but on the state of mind of the shooter at the time: did Sergeant Azaria believe the terrorist posed a credible threat while on the ground?
But even regarding the rules of engagement as they were understood at the time of the incident, the prosecution’s testimonies are problematic, if not outright tainted, according to Moshe Ifergan, writing for Mida Saturday.
“Don’t believe what the media are telling you,” Ifergen insisted. “Judicially speaking, the testimonies of the division commander, the soldier and the company sergeant who were at the scene prove that the prosecution has collapsed. Severe internal contradictions in witnesses’ testimonies and obstructions of the investigation on the part of the command level should lead to a mistrial.”
Ifergen accuses the IDF of intervening in the investigation in a manner that hopelessly polluted the evidence and the testimony. Kalman Liebskind, writing for Ma’ariv also accused then defense minister Moshe Ya’alon and IDF chief of staff Gabi Eizenkot of jumping to damning conclusions before the investigation had begun, and essentially shutting out any testimony that contradicted their strong and unmistaken condemnation of the accused. The defense was able to elicit from several witnesses, rank and file soldiers in Azaria’s unit, testimony about the massive campaign on the part of the division commander and the new battalion commander to condemn the accused.
A central question in the case, which everyone involved, including the judge, keep going back to, is the prosecution’s argument that the behavior of the soldiers in the B’Tselem video does not show that they were concerned about an explosive charge on the terrorist’s body, which the defense says was the reason Azaria shot him on the ground. Since these soldiers had undergone special training to handle explosives in such a situation, goes the argument, their lack of concern is evidence that no such threat existed at the time, ergo Azaria shot the terrorist because he hates Arabs.
But the protocols suggest otherwise. Here’s one exchange:
Defense: You underwent instruction with visualized situations of isolating a terror attack scene?
Soldier M: No.
D: You underwent instruction and situations where there was concern for an explosive charge on a terrorist?
D: And on the terrorist’s body?
D: The division commander who testified here said in an announcement [date omitted] that he instructed the commanders at the check point in Kiryat Arba (near Hebron) with the complete set of scenarios and that he wants to believe that this was passed on to all the soldiers. To you it wasn’t passed?
M: No, it wasn’t passed.
. . .
D: [A previous witness, an enlisted man] says like you’re saying, that you didn’t undergo training in situations of isolating an attack scene, and he says you didn’t undergo instruction and visualizing of situations where there was concern for an explosive load on the body of a terrorist?
M: No, just like I said a minute ago.
D: The company commander also confirms this regarding a lack of instruction for explosive charges here. Does this match your version?
The defense questioned three witnesses on this point, proving without the shadow of a doubt that while the division chief had instructed his commanders on the rules of engagement and protocol regarding a terrorist suspected of carrying a charge, the commanders did not consequently train their own underlings, which would suggest that the reason they appear care free and unafraid of an impending explosion was ignorance.
Meanwhile, earlier in the proceedings, the defense received confirmation to its point regarding the danger of an explosive from a prosecution witness, Sergeant A.
Prosecutor: When you arrived on the scene, what was your assignment?
A: To secure the terrorist who was situated at the bottom part of the slope, [dressed] in black, and to isolate the scene.
P: Who gave you this assignment?
A: Meir Avni (company commander).
P: What did he tell you regarding the terrorist?
A: He said the terrorist was still alive and there’s a concern about a charge on his person, I shouldn’t let people coming from down below to get close.
This was then used poignantly by the defense.
Defense: [Company Commander] Avni knows about the concern regarding the charge, this contrary to the testimony of the Division Commander.
D: And he instructs you not to go near the terrorist, to wait for the sapper and stay away from him.
A: Yes, [but] on point there’s one correction, I was instructed especially to stand behind the sapper and make sure people who are not part of the security forces not go near.
The odds on an acquittal or a mistrial for Sergeant Azaria among legal professionals who are interviewed by the media are about fifty-fifty. With one military judge already having been forced to recuse herself following an accusation of conflict of interests, and with the security establishment appearing so heavily invested in getting a conviction, it won’t be an easy task for the military judicial panel to rule against the system. But the case for both an acquittal and a mistrial appears strong, so that there’s little doubt that a conviction would result in an appeal to the civilian Supreme Court.JNi.Media
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-media-reporting-on-hebron-shooter-trial-strictly-political/2016/07/10/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: