web analytics
October 21, 2016 / 19 Tishri, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘haaretz’

An Open Letter to a Self-Hating Jew

Thursday, July 7th, 2016

Before I begin my letter, I’d like to take a second to define terminology. It’s the technical writer in me. I want to be clear. A self-hating person is someone who acts to harm himself, believing he is beneath contempt, without value or self-esteem. A self-hating Jew, however, is typically not so much concerned with bettering himself as ensuring that others live up to standards that are not only beyond the norm, but also self-defeating. A person who has a gun in their hands and is attacked by someone wielding a machete has little choice. Die or kill. A self-hating Jew will offer to arrange the funeral. The execution will take place, regardless of what choice the person takes. If they choose to die, the funeral will be physical and attended by many human rights activists, financed by George Soros, and hailed by John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If the Jew decides to use the gun, there will still be a funeral. This time, it will be in the media, attended by a world that would more than likely have used a bomb to kill the attacker, rather than only the gun that was in their hands.

An Open Letter to Gideon Levy

Dear Gideon,

It’s hard to write to you without wondering if I’ll have to cleanse my keyboard and computer; whether it will forever be tainted by having wasted this time and effort. This week, we were provided with the perfect scenario. Every soldier’s mother’s nightmare and every advocates dream. The video was very clear. The soldiers did not attack Jamila Jabbar, who wished to martyr herself on Allah’s bed of hatred. Jabbar attacked them.

The video is so amazingly clear, I’m surprised you didn’t take the more obvious option of claiming it was staged. Yes, Jabbar approaches the soldiers slowly. By her actions, we are all pretty sure slow is a good description not only for the pace she walks, but her mental capacity as well.

The soldiers back away from her. Even you…wow, even you admit the soldiers did all in their power to avoid the very confrontation she demanded. They backed away, calling to her to stop. She continued. And then, you contradict yourself. “In the blink of an eye”? Well, Gideon, if there was enough time for her to advance several meters, for the soldiers to react and pull back…clearly, that eye was doing more than blinking.

You ask Lt. General Gadi Eisenkot to watch the video of the attack. What, are you stupid? Do you really think that Eisenkot hasn’t watched it? About 15 times? I’m up to about 10 and I’m just a mother…

You ask whether the teenager (do you happen to know the ages of the soldiers…that might surprise you)…but anyway, you ask whether the teenager threatened the lives of the soldiers? Well, duh…knife in hand, lifted high and prepared to stab them…that would be a yes.

Now could they have turned around and run, leaving her at a bus stop to stab the next unarmed Jew who came along? Well, yeah, probably, but you see, Gideon, the thing about that uniform they are wearing is that it is intended to represent the fact that it is their job to PROTECT the civilians of this country and so they are supposed to deal with any and all threats as they arise and this one, dear misguided Gideon, was a clear and present one.

Is this how soldiers are supposed to act? Well, to be very honest, I think that they took too long. I think that had a commanding officer been there, he’d have shot her several seconds earlier. More, he would not have fired only one bullet. Protocol would have called for BOTH soldiers to fire; several bullets each, unless there were other civilians around, which there were not…yet.

Are we proud of their behavior? Hell, yes. Fact is, Gideon, these soldiers did what they were trained to do and they gave her more of a chance to stop than most soldiers in Israel (and more than ANY soldier in any country for about 1,000 miles in all directions).

You quote Eisenkot as saying that he didn’t want a soldier to empty a magazine on a girl. Gideon, I get the feeling you don’t know what a magazine is. See, it’s this plastic thing that holds, well, a lot of bullets. Not ONE single bullet that was fired at this poor, misguided, slow and terribly stupid terrorist who was desperately hoping to stab a soldier and get her one-way ticket to the staircase of martyrdom.

Then you ask another question – was shooting her in the stomach the only way to eliminate the threat? Hell no. They could have shot her in the head; they could have shot her in the heart. Given how close she was, they didn’t really have time to fool around with aiming for her legs or shooting in the air – but, if you were really wondering if there was another way besides the stomach, I have to admit, there was. Of course, we’d be burying her instead of treating her in our hospitals, but if you’d prefer that, maybe we can work on fixing the rules of engagement.

Then you get into math…I can tell, Gideon, that you’re probably good in writing but clearly, you suck at math. They collectively, these TWO soldiers, fired ONE bullet…so how was it two on one? You admit only one of the soldiers fired…oh right, I remember now, you thought the other one was supposed to attack her from behind without her noticing, right?

You ask another question that I’d like to answer – you ask “What do you think they’ll take away from their military service, from this incident?” Well, Gideon, I guess I should confess. Those soldiers were from my son’s unit so what they are going to take away from this is home baked brownies and a letter from me telling them that I am proud of them. As for the army, I’m hoping they give them a medal, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

And then you say maybe they’ll grow up one day. Gideon, they already have. If they thought Palestinian lives were cheap, they would not have hesitated for a second, and they would have shot her through the heart. And because they did act as they were supposed to, thank God (and no thanks to you), they will grow up. And no, I don’t think they’ll ever regret protecting their lives.

Getting back to you, Gideon, I know that the soldiers will mature, will go on to live productive lives, marry, have children and always remember that they are alive today because they didn’t listen to self-hating Jews who were ready to plan their funerals. Those soldiers will be strong and good citizens of our country. They will dedicate their lives to protecting this land and hoping that someday that strong stand will lead to a meaningful and real peace agreement.

I can only wish that we could say the same about you.

Paula Stern

Rightwing NGO Proves the Left Has No Sense of Humor, Introspection [video]

Wednesday, June 22nd, 2016

Israel’s remaining vestige of leftwing cultural tradition, Ha’aretz, fell for a rightwing hoax that exposed it as utterly bereft of the capacity for introspection, and worse, utterly without a sense of humor. This absence of humor could be attributed both to the paper’s proud tradition of German publishing (Ve don’t like jokes, sank you very much), as well as to the decline of the Israeli left, which used to do funny.

What’s good for the goose, the gander should at least try once, figured Israeli rightwing NGO Regavim, which is usually engaged in tracking European Union and Arab violations of real estate regulations in areas legally under Israeli control in Judea and Samaria. If upwards of 30 Israeli and Arab leftwing NGOs are receiving millions of euros annually to influence Israeli policy, why not invest a couple of shekels in influencing European policy? Take, for instance, the Brexit referendum coming up this week, in which Britons will decide whether or not to leave the European Union, and which all UK citizens find annoying, humiliating and repressive, but about half of them say it’s worth it for the economic benefits (which brings to mind certain obvious professions).

So Regavim launched a campaign featuring a website with a message to expat Britons in Israel to vote yes on leaving the EU: Support Israel – Leave Europe, which features some inflammatory text, actually making their case about the goose and the gander:

“The EU pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Israel annually through an array of NGOs in addition to the Palestinian Authority. With over 200 land disputes worldwide, the EU’s constant singling out of Israel is tantamount to state sponsored anti-Semitism.

“For decades, the pro-Israel community has sat and watched as the Europeans increase their influence and meddle with the lives and future of the people of Israel. Finally Israel supporters in the UK and abroad can take a stand against the EU, by voting leave.”

How much could that have cost? Eight bucks to register the URL, plus, say $50 to get a guy to put it up. Then they invested another hundred bucks or so in a video showing a Hamas traditionally masked press conference encouraging Britons to stay in the EU, because it would advance the Hamas cause. The bang they got for their buck was huge, because Ha’aretz reporter Uriel David leaped on the opportunity to slam the right, leaped without looking, we should add.

“Rightwing NGO Receiving Public Funds Calling on British to Leave the Union” was the headline, followed by, “The rightwing NGO Regavim supports the UK leaving the European Union as revenge for its support for the Palestinians. A January examination revealed that, according to the same NGO, it received about 11 million shekels ($2.85 million) from government entities.”

Then Ha’aretz added, without a shred of self awareness, apparently, after decades in which it has supported the vast flow of European money to fully fund anti-Israeli, leftwing NGOs: “Regavim is a non-profit active in favor of judaizing lands and against illegal Palestinian construction in Israel and the West Bank. The organization’s heads often criticize the European Union and other international entities for their alleged (sic) intervention in Israel’s internal affairs and their support for illegal construction programs.”

So now it’s been established, the goose really hates it when the gander is doing goosey things, and sees nothing funny about it.


Finally, the most rewarding reaction from the left came from Peace Now founder Yariv Oppenheimer, who regularly reminds you of the kid who gets picked last for games but hasn’t given up trying to look cool, who tweeted: “The Israeli government is funding an NGO that tries to meddle in the internal affairs of another country? Can it be?”

Hey, if the Brexit goes in favor of cutting away from the continent—a move endorsed by John Cleese of Monty Python fame, who really knows humor—it could be blamed on those pesky settlers.


Likely Compromise Found in Coalition Rift over Reform, Conservative Mikvahs

Monday, June 13th, 2016

Coalition chairman David Bitan (Likud) on Monday morning presented a compromise solution for the problem caused by last Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling siding with the demands of Reform and Conservative petitioners for equal access to state-run mikvahs-ritual baths. Last February, the Supreme Court ruled that local religious councils must make state-run mikvahs available for conversion ceremonies run by Israeli Reform and Conservative clergy.

Last week, the Knesset Interior Committee debated a bill proposed by Shas and UTJ, the two ultra-Orthodox coalition partners, determining that the use of public mikvahs in Israel will be conducted strictly according to halakha and under the supervision of the Chief Rabbinate.

Finance Committee Chairman MK Moshe Gafni (UTJ) for his part on Friday announced that he plans to submit the bill in order to prevent the implementation of the court’s ruling. This would be in keeping with the coalition agreement between UTJ and Likud, which says that each time the Supreme Court issues a ruling that jeopardizes issues close to the heart of the Orthodox-Jewish party, the government must submit a bill to bypass the court.

Gafni, who argued that the court’s new ruling violates the national status quo on issues of religion and state, also cited the coalition’s obligation to maintain the same status quo.

Judge Elyakim Rubinstein, an Orthodox Jew who was part of the unanimous decision in favor of the Reform and Conservative petitioners, suggested in his ruling that the religious council in question, in Be’er Sheva, illegally segregated against Israeli citizens. “From the moment the state has constructed public mikvahs and made them available to the public — including for use in conversions — it cannot practice inequality in their usage,” Elyakim wrote. Rubinstein added that “the state’s decision not to supervise dipping in the mikvah that is conducted as part of a private conversion does not justify preventing it.”

One of the other two judges on the panel was Salim Joubran, a Christian Arab. Chief Justice Miriam Naor was the third judge. It should be noted that while last week Ha’aretz complained about a decision by Judge Rubinstein favoring the Chief Rabbinate, implying he should have recused himself from deciding Orthodox Jewish issues because he wears a yarmulke (sic), the same paper did not make a similar complaint in this case.

The MK Bitan compromise will suspend the application of the Mikvah law for nine months, during which time two to four mikvahs would be built for the Reform and Conservative public. The Jewish Agency is expected to bear the costs of construction. Meanwhile, the coalition would work on a softer version of the Shas-UTJ bill, which would skirt the Supreme Court ruling but not actually bypass it. The first draft was scheduled to be presented to the Interior committee Monday morning.

According to MK Bitan, “We are not planning to pass a Supreme Court bypassing law, but instead to find solutions to the problems raised by the court’s ruling. According to the understanding, we will build between two to four mikvahs in various locations in the country for the Reform and Conservative public so they can dip there according to their method.” Bitan stressed that “we must maintain equality for everyone in spending resources.”

A Haredi party source that spoke to JNi.media on the condition of anonymity said the Bitan compromise will most likely be accepted since it does not actually compel religious councils to share existing mikvahs with the Reform and Conservative, but allocates to them new mikvahs. Nevertheless, the Haredi coalition parties are likely going to be subjected to attacks from the Haredi media, which see the very idea of allowing the two non-Orthodox movement a foot in the door as ushering disaster. Some in the Haredi media, such as Ha’peles, would like to see the Haredi parties using their critical role in Netanyahu’s small coalition to extract deeper concessions regarding the non-Orthodox mikvahs.


Analysis: Can Ha’aretz Be More Racist than Donald Trump? You Betcha

Friday, June 10th, 2016

Late last month, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was condemned universally, when everyone but Ann Coulter called him a racist and a bigot for suggesting federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel should have recused himself from the Trump University trial because his parents were born in Mexico, and he, Trump, as he so aptly put it, is “building a wall.” Trump went on to tell various reporters that although the judge was born in Indiana, he must be a Trump hater, on account of “I’m building a wall.” He also told one reporter that the same obligation to recuse themselves should also apply to Muslim American judges in Trump-related cases (the candidate generates thousands of them, literally).

The fact that both House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R- Kentucky) called on their party’s nominee to tone down the racism should tell us just how much they loathed his outburst.

On Friday morning, Ha’aretz op-ed writer Uri Misgav, in reviewing the recent Supreme Court decision that sided with the Chief Rabbinate and against the AG in prohibiting “alternative” kosher certifications, wrote the following:

“The ruling was by a majority of two to one. The two judges who preserved the corrupting power in the hands of the Rabbinate were Rubinstein and Noam Sohlberg. Both wear a yarmulke, [and are] religious Orthodox, who grew up and developed on the high road of Religious Zionism. They put the cats in charge of the cream. This was a very strangely composed panel. In fact, it was so strange that it’s not strange at all: of course it was intentional. With the assumption that it’s better to let the religious handle these issues which are close to their hearts. Except that the logic should have been the complete opposite of that. There’s a clear conflict of interests here. At stake was the tension between state and religion. The secular judge, incidentally, had the minority opinion.”

The paragraph above is dripping bigotry, not only accusing supreme court judges of being unable to examine a case on its merits, suspending their personal views—which is something we expect of every judge in every trial—but that somehow the powers-that-be on the court assigned the two religious Orthodox judges because the case belongs in their ghetto. The root of Trump’s bigotry and the root of Misgav’s bigotry are the same: they both assume that judges belonging to the group they hate are inevitably partial, interested parties in the cases they try.

But then Misgav focuses on Judge Sohlberg, calling him a criminal, because he resides in Alon Shvut, at the heart of Gush Etzion, an area which even Misgav agrees will never be handed over to Arab rule, even as part of a two-state agreement. Writing for a newspaper that has printed many miles of allegations against rightwing activists and politicians who have threatened the Supreme Court for its unprecedented activism, Misgav actually exposed Sohlberg to prosecution by a European court as a war criminal. The scenario is simple: Judge Sohlberg lands in Brussels, someone on the same El Al flight identifies him and calls over the Gendarmes, showing them the English translation of Misgav’s attack, demanding that Sohlberg be taken into custody until the war crime charges against him are verified. Unrealistic? Probably, but when MK Moti Yogev (Habayit Hayehudi) last summer announced, “We have to take the blade of a D-9 [bulldozer] to the High Court of Justice,” Ha’aretz took his expression of rage at face value.

It appears Ha’aretz is willing to see Israeli high court justices’ lives be put in jeopardy just to advance the paper’s political ends. So much for tolerance and liberalism.

David Israel

The French Peace Initiative: From de Gaulle to Haaretz

Wednesday, May 25th, 2016

{Originally posted to the Gatestone Institute website}

When I hear about the current French peace initiative for Israel and the Palestinians, I have to keep pinching myself to make sure that I am not dreaming. After the powerful United States tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to bring peace between these protagonists, what makes the French think that they can do better?

France’s boldness is particularly shocking, since France long ago lost the right to be considered a friend of Israel. In 1967, French President Charles de Gaulle imposed an arms embargo on Israel when the Jewish nation was under threat from a coalition of Arab countries. In doing so, de Gaulle threw the Jews under the bus in order to improve France’s relations with the Arab world. Thanks to Israeli ingenuity and resiliency, Israel still defeated the Arab coalition in the Six Day War and impressed the United States, which then replaced France as Israel’s main ally.

France’s peace initiative, which includes an international summit in Paris on May 30 to discuss the “parameters” of a peace deal, is French President François Hollande’s equivalent of de Gaulle’s betrayal of Israel. France has already announced that if the peace initiative fails, France will recognize a Palestinian state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rightly concluded that “this ensures that a conference will fail.”

It is clear that no solution would be acceptable to Israel unless it protects Israel against continued Arab aggression, and unless it finds a solution to the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees with which the Arab world insists on flooding Israel.

There is no sign that the Arab world, including the Palestinians, are anywhere close to accepting these conditions. France’s recognition of “Palestine” without any deal would mean that France does not consider those two conditions necessary.

France’s recognition of “Palestine” without any deal would provide no solution for Palestinian refugees. It would provide no solution to Palestinian terrorism. It would not make the concept of a Palestinian state any more real than it is today. It would not provide Israel with secure borders.

France’s unilateral recognition of “Palestine” would simply provide one more moral victory for the corrupt Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and one less reason for him to negotiate peace in good faith or to give his people what they really need: a thriving economy and a functioning civil society.

If France’s initiative had any chance of success at all (which is doubtful considering the U.S. failures under more favorable circumstances, when the Palestinian leadership was keener on negotiations and when Hamas was weaker), France eliminated that chance by announcing that it would recognize “Palestine” regardless of what happens.

Is the French government so naïve that it would play into Abbas’ hands and sabotage its own initiative? Maybe, but the more likely explanation seems to be that France knows that the peace initiative is pointless, but it is using it for theatrical value to embarrass Israel’s government and curry favor with Arab regimes.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which is often more “pro-Palestinian” (read anti-Israel) than the Palestinians, demands that Netanyahu accept the French initiative.

Haaretz takes the position that “there is no reason to reject the French initiative, which, even if it doesn’t resolve the fundamentals of the conflict, will at least put it back on the global agenda.” The theory that the conflict remains unresolved due to it not being on the “global agenda” is mind-boggling, considering the vocal and vicious worldwide anti-Israel movement. The conflict is very much on the “global agenda” — too much so, in fact — compared to other conflicts that are deadlier and get far less attention.

Haaretz claims that the French initiative “may also generate some original ideas and steps toward a solution.” Considering the attention that this conflict receives, the lack of “ideas” is far from being the problem. Pro-Israel and anti-Israel editorialists and bloggers have generated an immense body of “ideas,” most of which are totally impractical, and all of which are unrealistic until the Arab side of the conflict stops promoting hate against Israel and starts negotiating in good faith.

Haaretz‘s pathetic defense of the French initiative is followed by wholesale accusations, which have no substance, against Netanyahu. Haaretz, for instance, tries to convince readers that Netanyahu’s willingness to negotiate without conditions is itself a condition! As Haaretz is into the business of redefining words, why not say that the conflict is not really a conflict and be done with it!

Haaretz concludes by saying that Netanyahu “should give it [the French initiative] substance that will ensure the security and well-being of Israel’s citizens.” If this were possible, that would indeed be commendable, but as France, by promising the Palestinians recognition without negotiation, destroyed what little chance of success the initiative might have had. Asking Netanyahu miraculously to give the initiative “substance” is at best naïve, and at worst treacherous.

It could also be a trap to set Netanyahu up for failure, which, considering Haaretz‘s antipathy towards Israel’s Prime Minister, is likely.

Contrary to Haaretz‘s assertion that “there is no reason to reject the French initiative,” as the initiative is almost certain to fail, its failure will be one more weapon used by anti-Israel activists to demonize Israel, so there is every reason to not lend the initiative a legitimacy it does not deserve.

Israel survived de Gaulle’s betrayal, and it will likely survive Hollande’s betrayal. But one more failed initiative and one more meaningless recognition of “Palestine” will push peace and Palestinian statehood even farther away.

As Alan Dershowitz wrote recently, those who aided the Nazis in killing Jews, even indirectly, hold a part of the responsibility for the Holocaust. Those — in France, at Haaretz, or elsewhere — who claim to support peace but in fact work to undermine it, are partly responsible for the anti-Semitic campaign against Israel. They should be prominently named and exposed for collaborating with bigots, anti-Semites, and terrorists.

Fred Maroun

Gideon Levy and His Gush Etzion Delusions

Sunday, March 6th, 2016

“Do they really imagine that the Palestinians will ever give up this intersection, which was built forcibly on their land, against their wishes, like all the huge settlements surrounding it?”

It’s with those words that Haaretz’s Gideon Levy finished up his article last week, criticizing us Jews for living in Gush Etzion and building the Gush Etzion junction and the communities around it.

Land Levy claims was forcibly stolen from Arabs – essentially justifying their rage and terrorism.

Except, of course, it wasn’t forcibly stolen.

Professor Asa Kasher pointed that, in fact, the Arabs gave up this intersection and neighboring lands of their own free will.

The Arabs that owned the land in the area, sold it for hard cash to Kasher’s grandfather, Rabbi Menachem Kasher and the Zichron David society, in the year 1926. It became the Hareidi farming community of Migdal Eder with some 160 people – only to then be destroyed by the Arabs during the 1929 Arab riots. Nothing’s changed.

[Sigh] Gideon Levy and his many delusions.


Haaretz/Forward Article Paints Clinton as Strong on Israel But Omits Critical Fact

Wednesday, January 27th, 2016

Sometimes emails seem to have a life of their own. That is especially the case when the emails were sent to or by public figures, and even more so when one such public figure is running to become the President of the United States. And sometimes journalists try too hard to be good advocates.

Take Hillary Clinton’s emails, for example.

Clinton’s emails have attracted lots of attention ever since it was discovered that she used a private server for government business, eschewing the government email servers which nearly everyone now agrees she should have used. Claims have recently been made that emails which went through her private server required even more classification than top secret.

But just consider, once again, some other emails that were sent to and by Hillary Clinton that caught media attention recently.

Adam Kredo had two blockbuster revelations in the Washington Free Beacon on Jan. 11. He revealed that two sets of emails sent to Clinton while she was Secretary of State showed that some of her advisers were recommending she take wildly inappropriate action that would have been harmful to Israel.

Lots of other media outlets, including the JewishPress.com, then reported on those emails as well. The clear implication was that Clinton accepted advice from folks who were distinctly unfriendly towards Israel.

And now there are some media outlets who are using those same emails to dampen the damage, and even to promote Clinton as a friend to Israel.

The Forward‘s Natan Guttman, whose article was printed in Haaretz on the evening of Jan. 26, referred to Clinton’s “deep bench” of foreign policy advisers, as compared to Sanders’ empty bench. Guttman used the Free Beacon emails as examples of how much more involved in foreign affairs is Clinton than her main and now seemingly formidable primary opponent, Bernie Sanders.

One set of the emails in question came from former Ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering. He suggested Clinton find a way to agitate amongst Palestinian Arab women to protest Israeli policies. Pickering advised Clinton that she would have to keep her involvement secret.

Guttman rightly points out that Clinton’s response: “please print,” was less than an enthusiastic endorsement of the idea. Fair enough, although the fact that someone in one of the most powerful positions in the western world even glanced at and made any comment suggests some level of interest in the concept.

But then something peculiar happened.

Guttman also pointed out that Clinton’s Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter offered to Clinton what she hoped would be a creative, if slightly off the wall, suggestion. Slaughter suggested Clinton gather up a gaggle of billionaires and encourage them to create a massive fund for the Palestinian Arabs. Slaughter suggested it be called the “Pledge for Palestine,” along the lines of Warren Buffet’s “The Giving Pledge” campaign.

Guttman gets a pass for suggesting that Clinton’s “please print” response to Pickering’s suggestion to invoke “peaceful” riots was phlegmatic, but his failure to mention Clinton’s positive response to Slaughter is more of a sticky wicket.

Slaughter delighted at the prospect of having Israelis “be shamed” for building homes “in the face of a Pledge for Peace.”

And Clinton’s response to Slaughter, as the JewishPress reported, was anything but phlegmatic. She wrote: “I am very interested – pls flesh out. Thx.”

In other words, a diabolical idea to get phenomenally wealthy Clinton Foundation donors and others to kick in a lot of dough for Israel’s enemies, and to embarrass the Israelis at the same time, was of great interest to Clinton. Not the kind of information promoters of Clinton as “good for the Jews” want noted.

Perhaps Guttman only read Kredo’s article about the emails, and not the emails themselves.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/haaretzforward-article-paints-clinton-as-strong-on-israel-but-omits-critical-fact/2016/01/27/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: