web analytics
August 30, 2016 / 26 Av, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘haaretz’

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.

JoeSettler

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

Peace Now: Israel Planning 8.400 Housing Units in ‘E-1″ in Maaleh Adumim

Monday, December 28th, 2015

The Netanyahu government reportedly is going full-speed ahead although behind the scenes to develop the controversial E-1 area in Maaleh Adumim that would effectively give Israel a Jewish continuity to Jerusalem.

Peace Now alleged this morning that the government is planning 6,372 residential units in the area as part of a larger program for 55,548 new homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria, including a new community near Bethlehem and one in the Jordan Valley.

An Israeli official said that no final decision has made been concerning E-1, but it can be assumed that the official decision will come at the right time politically, perhaps when the Palestinian Authority is so illegitimate that Prime Minister Netanyahu can thaw the de facto building freeze.

Housing Minister Yoav Galant, of the Kulanu party, denied that plans are being made.

Peace Now alleged that the ministry allocated to Ma’aleh Adumim $9.5 million in November 2014, without issuing a tender, for planning the area. In addition, another $200,000 was allegedly paid to outline future construction sites east of Jerusalem as well as to expand other communities in Judea and Samaria.

Building in E-1 would be the Waterloo for the Palestinian Authority, while not developing it would be the same for Israel.

The Bush and Obama administrations have pressured Israel several times not to build in E-1, a 4.6-square mile area that has been designated for construction since the time that Yitzchak Rabin was Prime Minister in the 1990s.

It would be no surprise if the government is going ahead with building plans, in light of the decimation of the two-state proposal and the Palestinian Authority’s hard and fast position that there is nothing to negotiate with Israel unless it agrees to all of the PA’s political and territorial demands.

However, the publicity of the plans for construction is a red flag for the Palestinian Authority as well as for the Israeli left-wing camp. The Haaretz newspaper, which often acts as President Rivlin agent for Peace Now, reported Monday:

The Israeli fear is that without ‘facts on the ground’ in E-1, the giant settlement, which has some 40,000 residents, could end up an unviable Israeli enclave in a Palestinian state.

The newspaper quoted Peace Now director Yariv Oppenheimer, as saying that the documents detailing plans for E-1 and elsewhere in Judea and Samaria show that the government of Israel is not wasting a single day and is investing tens of millions of shekels in expanding and establishing new settlements. Behind the scenes they are secretly planning the establishment of a bi-national state.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Roger Waters, Aggressive BDS Advocate, at Haaretz NY Conference

Monday, December 14th, 2015

Roger Waters, former frontman for the 70’s rock band Pink Floyd and current number one international Israel-hater and aggressive advocate for boycotts of all things Israel, showed up at the New York City conference put together by Israeli newspaper Haaretz in coordination with the far-left New Israel Fund. Waters was treated like a…well, a celebrity.

Why Waters would show up at a conference put on by an Israeli newspaper is only confusing if you think of Haaretz as a newspaper which is anything but also aggressively focused, like Waters, on revealing and repeatedly emphasizing the most egregious accusations aimed against Israel.

First, a reminder of how much Waters hates Israel. A constant refrain of his is to compare Israel to Apartheid South Africa, facts – like Arab members of the Knesset, an Arab member of the Supreme Court – be damned.

In 2012, Waters spoke at the United Nations, condemning Israel as an Apartheid state, and blaming Israel for denying the “Palestinian” people their “inalienable right” to “self-determination.” That same year he was a leader of the effort to get Carnegie Hall to cancel the scheduled appearance by the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra, and he helped convince Stevie Wonder not to appear at a benefit in Los Angeles for the Friends of the IDF.

Roger Waters assailed actress Scarlett Johansson for working with SodaStream and musician Neil Young for his planned performance in Israel in 2014. In an open letter to Johannson, Waters called her choice to continue representing SodaStream and stepping down as a representative of Oxfam “an act of intellectual, political, and civil about face, that we, all those of us who care about the downtrodden, the oppressed, the occupied, the second class, will find it hard to rationalize.”

For years Waters has been bullying other celebrities, seeking to intimidate them into canceling any planned visits to Israel. This past fall, Waters went after Jon Bon Jovi who was scheduled to perform with his band in Israel. Bon Jovi snubbed Waters and performed in Tel Aviv’s Hayarkon Park on Oct. 3. The lead singer even told Israelis, to great applause, they should adopt his song, “We Don’t Run.”

The Haaretz/NIF conference was described in its promotional literature as “an opportunity for our community – those of us who care about Israel and about democratic values – to get together, to ask the hard questions, and to drive our movement forward.”

At the Haartz/New Israel Fund conference, dozens of hard-left Israeli Israel-bashers appeared, alongside such luminaries as Saeb Erekat, perennial spokesperson for the Palestinian Authority, Peter Beinart, an American Jewish pro-BDS advocate, Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of the faux pro-Israel J Street, newly-appointed by President Obama ISIS czar Rob Malley, and many, many others who share a goal to publicly humiliate Israel through the pages of such media handmaidens as Haaretz.

Others were also slated as speakers at the conference, such as Israel’s president Ruvi Rivlin and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power.

But what was Waters doing there? He had on an official name tag, but he wasn’t a speaker (or singer). Maybe he had simply signed up to attend. For this he was  willing to put aside his hatred and refusal to be associated with, or allow anyone else to be associated with, anything Israeli, if the Israeli item is just as virulently anti-Israel as is he.

Haaretz writer and U.S. editor Chemi Shalev was apparently thrilled to be shown in a picture with Israel-hater Waters. He tweeted a picture of the two of them with the (untrue) caption, “Boycott/shmoycott, no Pink Floyd addict can resist the thrill of meeting Roger Waters at #HaaretzQ.”

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Dozens of IDF Officers Protest Rivlin’s Presence at Haaretz-NIF Meeting

Sunday, December 13th, 2015

The expression of “what is a  Kohen doing in a cemetery,” where he is prohibited, may apply to President Reuven Rivlin and today’s New Israel Fund-Haaretz conference in New York City.

Dozens of IDF Reserve officers are conducting a protest outside the President’s official residence in an effort to pressure President  Rivlin to cancel his appearance at the conference because the anti-IDF Breaking the Silence is participating.

The officers said that President Rivlin, as a representative of Israel, must boycott the event organized by the New Israel Fund (NIF), coordinated with the Haaretz newspaper, to make clear his non-acceptance of groups such as Breaking the Silence that try to make Israel look illegitimate.

But Breaking the Silence is only the tip of the iceberg. The list of speakers and panelist reads like a “Who’s Who of the radical Left.

The office of the President stated:

The President will deliver his remarks during the conference of the Haaretz newspaper as he does in a variety of conferences organized by media from time to time.

Concerning the facts, it is important to note that in this case, we are speaking about the participation of one of dozens of participants during the day. It will take part in a panel that does not take place in the presence of the president, so there is no connection between them,

As for facts,, today’s event is not a media conference. It is a New Israel Fund conference that Haaretz is promoting and in which it is participating with its finest Israel bashers, such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass.

Perhaps President Rivlin will not be present when Breaking the Silence speaks, but what about other speakers and panelists, some of whose names read like a Who’s Who of the radical Left?

And the question remains why is President Rivlin appearing and what will he say?

Yes,  he will have the opportunity to show his face to the extreme left-wing of American Jews and non-Jews, as well as officials from the Obama administration such as Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power and PLO executive Saeb Erekat.

Public appearances are one of the President’s  most important functions, but why did he choose such a  group, unless he stuns them with a Zionist speech instead of patronizing them?

Here are some of the “Zionists” at the conference:

Arik Wade Ascherman. the Rabbis for Human Rights activist who single-handedly led leftists and Arabs to uproot more than 1,500 saplings in front of shocked elementary school students on Tu B’Shvat several years ago because they planted on land in Judea and Samaria.

The promotional material for today’s conference omits that little detail and states that he “is internationally recognized as a leading advocate for human rights and social justice as religious, Jewish and Zionist obligations,” such as rights for “the Negev Bedouin.”

Other speakers are:

Suhad Babaa, the executive director of Just Vision, ‘an organization dedicated to increasing media coverage and support for Palestinian and Israeli grassroots leaders working to end the occupation and build a future of freedom, equality, dignity and human security for all through unarmed means.’

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder and president of J Street.

Uri Blau, an investigative journalist for Haaretz, specializing in military and political affairs, corruption and transparency….Blau became the first Israeli journalist to be convicted for possession of classified military documents.

Hagai El-Ad, an Israeli human rights activist, is the executive director of B’Tselem.

Avner Gvaryahu, who  joined Breaking the Silence as a researcher and tour guide.

Another speaker is Arab Knesset Member Ayman Odeh, who last week refused to attend a meeting with Jewish leaders because it was to take place in the same building that is home to the offices of the Jewish Agency?

Other panelists and speakers are:

‘Rabbi’ Jill Jacobs, the Executive Director of T’ruah. [For information on T’ruah and President Rivlin’s joint appearance at the White House, click here.]

Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism.

Daniel J. Sokatch,  chief executive officer of the New Israel Fund.

Dr. Husam S. Zomlot, ambassador-at-large for Palestine [sic] and the executive deputy commissioner of the Fatah Foreign Relations Commission.

Haaretz editor Aluf Benn and a host of his writers will speak and appear on the panels, whose subjects include:

Beyond negotiations: Can the peace process be unfrozen to achieve more than ‘conflict management’?

What’s left: Is there a future for the progressive movement in Israel?

‘Droves of Arab voters:’ Is the struggle of Israel’s Arab citizens to equality the new focal point of the conflict?

Jerusalem burning: Is religion the solution or the problem?

Synagogue and state: Who defines the Jewishness of Israel?

 

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/dozens-of-idf-officers-protest-rivlins-presence-at-haaretz-nif-meeting/2015/12/13/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: