THIS sucks

I recently came across an anti-Birthright article written for "THIS" magazine. Being that I just went on a Birthright trip last August, I thought I would address the aforementioned article. But first, some background information about what we're talking about here.

In brief, Birthright is a program organized by Jewish philanthropists and the Israeli government to give non-Israeli Jews a chance to see Israel at no cost to them. The program is entirely free and is geared towards college-age Jews who have never been to the Holy Land. Every Birthright tour spans 10 days and includes free lodging, airfare and tour guides. Native Israelis who are around the same age as their visitors lead buses full of Jews from one side of the country to the other, showing them ancient cities, beautiful beaches and desert landscapes and a glimpse into the Israeli nightlife. It's a great time and I highly recommend it for anyone in the 18-26 year old age range who can qualify.

As far as I can tell THIS is a Canadian hippie magazine with a clear anti-war, pro-Socialist agenda. The magazine's tagline is:

"THIS Magazine, because everything is political"

And according to their mission statement:

This Magazine focuses on Canadian politics, pop culture and the arts, but in keeping with its radical roots never pulls punches.

Sounds like your run-of-the-mill, anti-establishment, "too hip for the room" features, movie/book/tv/etc. reviews and various articles that tell you what cool people think about the stuff you care about. Basically, the Canadian version of the Village Voice on steroids. Minus the relevance. THIS seems like place where anything indie is awesome and anyone who makes more than $20K a year is a jerk. Hooray!

You would think that with so many pretentious opinions throw at us and so many annoying poems to write, the editors and writers at THIS magazine would be too preoccupied for foreign affairs.

And yet they still found the time weigh in on the current events of a small Middle Eastern country that sits on a piece of land that's even smaller than the American state of New Jersey.

In September/October of 2007, THIS Magazine published an issue



called "The New Apartheid" which of course (as you can see) featured an Israeli flag on the cover.

This entire issue is chock-full of anti-Israel propaganda, featuring articles with names such as “Tear down that wall!” and Birthrights (and wrongs).

Blatant anti-Israel (and anti-Jewish) bias aside...absurdity of an allegedly "liberal" magazine siding with a brutal, racist dictatorship and terrorist regime such as Hamas aside...why on Earth would a magazine that's supposedly pre-occupied with Canadian politics spend an entire issue on a country several time zones away?

Luckily, we can find all the answers in the editor's note, which is rather pretentiously titled: What indie media is for. Really? Bashing Israel is what it's for? Well I guess that makes sense since it seems that just about all indie media absolutely hates the Jewish state but I digress...

In this anti-Israel manifesto, editor Jessica Johnston gushes about how "excited" she was when the opportunity to do a feature on "the growing international campaign to boycott Israel" was "pitched" to her. She makes mention of "injustices perpetrated against Palestinians by the Israeli state" but laments that smearing the Jewish state "is a delicate and tricky matter" (as opposed to the blood libels of the Middle Ages which were so much easier to pull off). She cites the criticism that was leveled at Jimmy Carter as an example of how difficult it is to get away with Jew-bashing these days.

As far as I could tell, nowhere in this issue (and certainly not in the "editor's note") was there any mention of the Palestinian terror campaign of suicide bombings, shooting attacks, lynch mobs, rocket attacks, or any of the literally hundreds of Israeli victims of this savage terror war that is perpetrated on the Jews of Israel by the very leaders Johnston supports. This is not surprising because as we have already covered many times Jewish blood just doesn't matter as much as Arab blood.

In any case, suffice it to say that the magazine and the issue in question is...less than sympathetic to the Zionist dream. Which of course brings us finally to our main event, the anti-Birthright/Israel article by Peter Trainor.

The article, entitled Birthrights (wrongs) begins with the following statement:

“Within hours of arriving, our blood connection to Israel was firmly established. It was impossible to not feel patriotic, but the feeling was artificial, almost sickly sweet.” Personal revelations on the road in Israel

The author Peter Trainor, a self-declared "long-time supporter of the Palestinian non-violent [editor's note: non-violent??? WHAT?!] resistance movement against the Israeli military occupation" was on this trip to allegedly "try to understand the other side of the story."

Trainor briefly describes his family background (a "secular family with both Christian and Jewish ancestry") and some of his experience in the West Bank, which he had visited for five weeks in the spring/summer of 2002 (no doubt in between Spring and Fall semesters in college). How a 10 day Birthright trip is supposed to be equal time to a five-week misery tour of Palestinian refugee camps is beyond me. How a movement that uses suicide bombings and rocket attacks as tactic can be described as "non-violent" is beyond comprehension. But more on that later.

The opening quote came from an experience the author had on the first day of the trip, in Tel Aviv's "Independence Hall" - the place where the founders signed and read the Declaration of Independence. He continues by saying that "the 'good fight' we were being coaxed to join seemed just too good to be true."

It seems that Trainor means to suggest that this program is some kind of recruitment mission for the Zionist cause -- at best. At worst, one could take a statement like this to mean that this was some kind of military recruitment. This of course, is blatantly false. In addition to having gone on a similar trip myself, several of my friends have as well. To the best of my knowledge not one of them has joined the Israeli military or has been "coaxed" into joining any fight whatsoever.

He continues to add to this misrepresentation by writing that he and his fellow Birthright friends were encouraged "to marry a Jew, raise our children as Jews, act as ambassadors for Israel on our university campuses, or even do what Joe [his tour guide]—originally from Boston—had done, and immigrate to Israel, become a citizen and fight in the army." Again, the goal of trip is portrayed as some kind of military recruitment mission. Absurd! For starters, immigrants (whether Jewish or not) to Israel are NOT obligated to serve in the Israel Defense Force if they are above military age. And the truth is that even if they are of military age, women are NEVER forced into combat duty and men can get out of if they really want to. As for his other allegations that they were encouraged to marry Jews and raise their children as Jews...how terrible! To think that a Jewish organization would want its participants and their descendants to stay Jewish! Scandalous!

Trainor paints an even clearer picture of a Zionist brainwashing program, alleging that his tour guide wanted him to become a "born-again Jew" and that the success of the program was that "only two or three of our group of 40 were skeptical about what we were being taught. I wondered why more young Jews weren’t asking questions about the wisdom of supporting Israel, and its army. And I didn’t understand how Jews, after so many generations of being on the wrong side of intolerance, could justify the oppression of others [Palestinians]."

Since we have already covered the reason why Jews should (read: MUST) support the only Jewish state we have and what the real reasons behind this "oppression" are, I would like to instead examine why Trainor was the only person on his trip who struggled so much with the legitimacy of Israel. Why, as Trainor describes so many of his trip-mates were swept up by love for their state while he remained so miserable that after his Birthright trip he returned to the West Bank to help the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) with their anti-Israel/anti-Jewish activities.

A simple google search turned up some interesting information about the writer of this smear article. Apparently, it's not the first work published by Trainor. In 2002 (ostensibly during his five-week stay at Hotel Ramallah) he co-published an article for al-Haq called Death Traps: Israel's Use of Force at Checkpoints in the West Bank. Not exactly the most neutral person to report on a Birthright trip. Let alone, that Trainor had at least three years between 2002 and 2005 to further indoctrinate himself in anti-Israel propaganda, why wait that long if you were really going to try and see the "other side of the story" ?

Of course one does not just end up on a five-week tour of Ramallah by accident. Obviously Trainor's anti-Israel feelings could not have just happened by accident. Generally secular Jews who come to hate the state of Israel and actively work against it by joining such pro-terrorist organizations as the ISM (more on that later) are anti-establishment, supposed "liberals" like co-founder Adam Shapiro(another jerk I'd love to meet in a steel cage match) who rebel against their heritage and refuse to acknowledge the fact that they are Jews.

In Trainor's case however, it is even more cut-and-dry. His mother,



Vera Szoke, a child of Holocaust survivors who parallels Nazi Germany and Zionist Israel gloats that her son Peter has visited "Palestine" several times. In an interview that appears on the Canadian Islamic Congress website (what a Jewish woman is doing hanging out with an Islamic Congress is beyond me) Szoke refers to "Zionist propaganda" and "brainwashed Israelis" (sound familiar?). She nonchalantly makes the claim that "the Israelis and the Zionists are committing a holocaust over the Palestinians" despite the fact that her own mother is a survivor of Auschwitz!

First of all, if the State of Israel is really committing genocide against Palestinians, they are doing a pretty God-awful job of it since by all estimates Palestinians will outnumber Jews within a few generations. The fact that there are Jews today who can spout this kind of hateful nonsense about their own people is an absolute disgrace. But then, the concept of the self-hating Jew is not a new one and can be the subject of its own book, let alone its own blog.

As if all this wasn't enough to disqualify Trainor as a legitimate Birthright participant with an open mind, his mother is a member of the Alternative Tourism Group - a Palestinian NGO and precursor to the ISM that organizes tours to the West Bank and Gaza, offers help to people who want to be able to slip in and out the Palestinian territories while evading Israeli authorities (gee, who would want that kind of help aside from bored, spoiled college students?) and has been connected to Palestinian terror groups and even al-Qaeda! (allegedly)

Now usually I prefer not to judge someone by the actions of his parents, however it's pretty clear that Trainor is following in her footsteps. The fact that his article is entirely biased and makes no mention of his mother's participation in these disgraceful movements is no surprise. What is a surprise is his brazen attempt to bash the Birthright program as a glorified propaganda mission WHEN HE AND HIS MOTHER ARE ACTUALLY RUNNING A PRO-TERROR PROPAGANDA MISSION TO ISRAEL THEMSELVES.

It is also no surprise that by the end of the trip when he e-mailed his fellow Birthright participants what was doubtlessly more anti-Israel hatred, his tour guide, Joe (who is portrayed of course, as an over-the-top Zionist zealot) responds in the following way:

“Just want to say that I admire Peter’s dedication to this cause even though it is the cause of a people who want to blow up my children. Peter’s misguided dedication proves how people, even intelligent people, can be led astray by masking themselves in the banner of righteousness. This is what Hitler did and this is what Arafat did. You have chosen sides ... the side of my people’s enemy.” Then he asked to be taken off of my mailing list.

No kidding. I'd want to be taken off this clown's mailing list too. You see, the bottom line is that Trainor was never on this trip to "see the other side" - anymore than a CIA operative visits Baghdad "to see the other side." Trainor was there so he could accumulate examples of Israeli zealotry and vilify the program that was responsible for his greatest competition back home.

He, like his mother uses incredible hyperbole to create an image of Israelis as indistinguishable from Germans during the Third Reich -- a shameful practice to say the least. And Trainor ends his article with more use of this garbage:

He [Joe] told us that we were going to yell a message across to the Romans. The message was in Hebrew. Am Israel Chai. He counted to three and we all screamed it out. Seconds later we heard the echo. It sounded like a thousand ghosts were screaming back at us. Perhaps they were.

But is it hyperbole? Or is it possible that there WERE voices screaming back at Trainor?

Maybe...but I doubt it was "thousands of ghosts" -- more likely it was 6 million souls screaming at him and everyone like him that the very thing they are fighting against is their legacy. That legacy is the safe haven they never had when they were abandoned by the world to the Nazi ovens. Trainor and everyone like him are doing everything they can to hijack that legacy and use it to destroy the very thing that would have saved those souls from slaughter -- the state of Israel. It's no wonder that the anti-Israel contingent does everything it can to attack Birthright -- a program whose goals are to show Jews that they can be proud of their culture, history, religion and state. A program like this goes against everything these people stand for. It shakes them to their bones and exposes them for what they are.

So maybe it was ghosts. Maybe it was the memories of all the Jews that have died over the course of history to protect and defend that heritage and that culture.

Or maybe, just maybe it wasn't voices at all.

Maybe, the sound Trainor heard screaming at him, was his own conscience.

The New York Times is ALSO biased? No way!

In keeping with this month's theme of reporting on bias in the media, here is a reprint of a blog I put out on July 19th, 2006 about a New York Times article that was thrown at me during a message board discussion about whether or not Israel's response during the 2006 Lebanon War was acceptable. Like other wartime posts, please take into account the high level of emotions that people with family in Israel experienced during that time period.

If you do not want to read the entire article, feel free to skip past the italicized part as I will reprint the parts I am quoting as I go through it. Enjoy!

------------------------------------

Original NY Times Article:

With Israeli Use of Force, Debate Over Proportion
Hussein Malla/Associated Press

(caption) A Lebanese man in Hadath rushed away from the scene where a convoy of trucks was targeted before dawn. Civilian casualties mounted as Israeli warplanes blasted targets on the southern edge of Beirut.

By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: July 19, 2006
JERUSALEM, July 18 — The asymmetry in the reported death tolls is marked and growing: some 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians. In Gaza, one Israel soldier has died from his own army’s fire, and 103 Palestinians have been killed, 70 percent of them militants.

The cold figures, combined with Israeli air attacks on civilian infrastructure like power plants, electricity transformers, airports, bridges, highways and government buildings, have led to accusations by France and the European Union, echoed by some nongovernmental organizations, that Israel is guilty of “disproportionate use of force” in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and of “collective punishment” of the civilian populations.

Israel has heard these arguments before. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said, “Proportionality is not compared to the event, but to the threat, and the threat is bigger and wider than the captured soldiers.”

Israel is confronting a regional threat, she and the government argue, which begins with Iran and Syria and their proxy, Hezbollah, and stretches to the radical Islamic Palestinian group Hamas.

Nor does Israel deliberately single out civilians, she argued, as Hezbollah and Hamas do through rocket attacks and suicide bombings. Intent matters, she said.

But in Gaza and Lebanon, civilians are inevitably harmed when militants hide among them. And in Lebanon, she said, some of the dead may be civilians associated with Hezbollah, assisting it or storing its rockets.

“Terrorists use the population and live among them,” Ms. Livni said. “It’s difficult to target like a surgery. Unfortunately, civilians sometimes pay the price of giving shelter to terrorists.” Under pressure or not, she said, citing Israeli intelligence, many civilians in southern Lebanon have Katyusha and other rockets under their beds.

“When you go to sleep with a missile,” she said, “you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.”

Those arguments leave Lebanese and Gazans cold.

Dalia Harati, 33, a Lebanese Sunni in Beirut, said: “The world is just standing by while Israel kills more and more. They come here and urge Hezbollah to free the prisoners and then stop firing rockets against Israel, with only about 30 killed so far, and then ask the Israelis to stop their attacks when they have already killed more than 200.

“It is as usual the West’s famous double standards, but we were hoping that would change when so many innocents are being killed.”

Last week, Khamiz Essaid sat beside the Gaza hospital bed of his son, Muhammad, 18, who had been wounded in the liver by shrapnel when an Israeli rocket hit the escape car of some Hamas military leaders, who had survived the bombing of the house where they were meeting. Muhammad, resting after an operation, had gone out to try to help the survivors, his father said.

What did Mr. Essaid think of Hamas having a meeting in his neighborhood and the consequences? “Gaza is too small,” he said. “Where can they go?”

Despite the damage, he says he supports Palestinian efforts to hit Israel, however ineffective. “We don’t have F-13’s or 14’s or 17’s, or whatever they are,” he said. “What do we have? These little rockets, like needle pricks. And the Israelis exaggerate the impact of these needles and say we’re destroying their state! But we have to resist any way we can.”

A ground attack is more surgical than airstrikes. The operation in Gaza, for example, has killed more militants than civilians, often through direct exchanges of fire. But Israel wants to avoid being bogged down on the ground, as it was in Lebanon for 18 years.

Israel has been careful to drop leaflets warning civilians in southern Beirut and southern Lebanon where it knows that Hezbollah keeps stores of rockets and launchers in apartment houses, garages and homes.

Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, a member of Israel’s general staff, said there were military rationales for the targets Israel had chosen: to reduce and destroy the ability of Hezbollah or Hamas to attack Israelis, to move freely and to be resupplied from Syria and Iran. He insisted that “the Israeli military tries our utmost to avoid civilian casualties.”

Israel attacked the Beirut headquarters of Hezbollah, the specially built “Security Square,” where leaders like Sheik Hassan Nasrallah live and have offices, and where they are now in bunkers.

The point was strategic and also psychological, he said, to destroy “the symbol for the power of the state-within-the-state of Hezbollah” and attack Sheik Nasrallah’s “image as the defender of Lebanon.”

Israel has now “demolished the entire compound, and the residents, the leaders of Hezbollah, are now living underground or as refugees, and that’s a significant achievement,” the general said.

While a vast majority of Israelis support the operation in Lebanon, some argue that once Hezbollah attacked across an international border whose path had been drawn by the United Nations, Israel could have demanded that the United Nations Security Council insist that the Lebanese comply with its Resolution 1559, which requires Hezbollah to disarm.

“You don’t have to be a political genius to realize that once you have the moral high ground, you should use it,” said Ari Shavit, a columnist for the daily Haaretz. “And then if we had to act, we would have more legitimacy to act and prove how serious we are about our borders.”

Wars end with diplomacy, he said. Opinion polls show that Israelis back the Lebanon campaign because they see Hezbollah as a clear threat. They have also become inured to international criticism. Uri Dromi, director of international outreach for the Israel Democracy Institute, said, “Public opinion is not so sensitive, because we feel, generally speaking, the world is against us and we’re a little island in an ocean of enmity.”

Shlomo Avineri, a political scientist at Hebrew University and a former diplomat, said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was under pressure to project strength.

“If you don’t respond, it’s perceived as weakness,” he said. “If you do respond, it strengthens the extremists. But only if you respond robustly do you have a political horizon in Israel. Compromises can only be made from a position of strength.”

There is nostalgia, Mr. Dromi said, “for the good old days, when we had deterrence, and when it failed, we went to a real war, kicked butt and went home.”

“Those days are over,” he said, “but there’s a yearning for something lost. Olmert is trying to bring back some of this deterrence.”

Referring to complaints that Israel was using disproportionate force, Dan Gillerman, Israel’s United Nations ambassador, said at a rally of supporters in New York this week, “You’re damn right we are.”

“If your cities were shelled the way ours were,” he said, addressing critics, “you would use much more force than we are or we ever will.”

Raji Sourani, a Gazan lawyer who founded and directs the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, is running out of patience.

“What is happening here is resistance to the occupation,” he said. “What Israel is doing in Gaza now has nothing to do with the captured soldier. I don’t think bridges, power stations or airports have anything to do with the soldier. I don’t think denying access for goods and people has anything to do with the soldier, or denying medicine, or bombarding one of the world’s most densely populated areas by day and night.”

Mr. Sourani said he was becoming discouraged. “People can’t be expected to be ‘good victims,’ ” he said. “People like me who are committed to coexistence are losing patience. People are being held hostage in Beit Hanun and no one is talking about it anymore, and Israel will pay very dearly for what is happening here.”

The problem, said Ms. Livni, the foreign minister, is that Israel is dealing with two semi-states, Hezbollah and Hamas, which have pledged to destroy Israel.

“The leaders who support an acceptable process are the weak ones,” she said, citing the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, and the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen. “This is a real problem and a real similarity. Siniora is against the Syrians and has the same ideas as the international community, and Abu Mazen favors a two-state solution, but neither of them can deliver.”

Mr. Avineri said United Nations resolutions had never been enforced properly here. “So they become a piece of paper to which foreign ministries respond, but not terrorist organizations.” Resolution 1559 gave Mr. Siniora legitimacy to take his army to the border, but no means to do it.

“It’s the Middle East,” Ms. Livni said. “It’s always choosing between bad options. And that’s true for the international community, too, and not just for us.”


Original source: NY Times editorial peice

Ok - objective = representing both sides fairly and equally correct?

We can agree on that. Remember, just because someone says something that you like does not make it objective. I love a lot of the articles I read in the Jerusalem Post and the stories they run on Fox News, but just because I feel they show my viewpoint when others do not, does not mean they're objective. TRUE objectivity must include BOTH viewpoints, equally shown, in the same article or story or whatever.

Taking that as a given, let's analyze this article. On the surface it appears you are right, both sides' viewpoints are presented. Almost even time is given to both sides' opinions. However, there are a few glaring inconsistancies. Starting with the picture and caption that appears DIRECTLY below the title...

Exhibit A:

A Lebanese man in Hadath rushed away from the scene where a convoy of trucks was targeted before dawn. Civilian casualties mounted as Israeli warplanes blasted targets on the southern edge of Beirut.

First of all, one could argue that if you were going to show a picture of the impact on civilians of one side - you must show the impact on civilians on the other side as well to be truly objective. This is not an editorial on the suffering of the Lebanese this is a discussion of whether or not the Israeli response is "disporportionate" - well, why not show a picture of the Hezbollah response? Or better yet, the Hezbollah action that PROMPTED the Israeli response? If the original attack terrorized 100 people and the response also terrorized 100 people, that's not disproportionate, correct? Unfortunately, we would never know from this article.

But the picture itself isn't so much the issue. It's more the caption, specifically the part that says:

Civilian casualties mounted as Israeli warplanes blasted targets on the southern edge of Beirut.

Interesting, casualties mounted as they "blasted targets" in Beirut? What targets were they? Hezbollah targets? Anti-aircraft guns? Rocket launchers? Schools? Hospitals? Puppy farms? We are left to ponder these questions. TRUE objectivity would have stated they "blasted (which is an incendiary term itself) Hezbollah targets in response to rocket attacks on Israeli towns" - in fact, I don't think there was any SPECIFIC mention of civilian casualties as a result of Hezbollah attacks on Israel at all in the entire article. Which brings me to...

Exhibits B and C:

Dalia Harati, 33, a Lebanese Sunni in Beirut, said: The world is just standing by while Israel kills more and more. They come here and urge Hezbollah to free the prisoners and then stop firing rockets against Israel, with only about 30 killed so far, and then ask the Israelis to stop their attacks when they have already killed more than 200.

It is as usual the Wests famous double standards, but we were hoping that would change when so many innocents are being killed.

Last week, Khamiz Essaid sat beside the Gaza hospital bed of his son, Muhammad, 18, who had been wounded in the liver by shrapnel when an Israeli rocket hit the escape car of some Hamas military leaders, who had survived the bombing of the house where they were meeting. Muhammad, resting after an operation, had gone out to try to help the survivors, his father said.

What did Mr. Essaid think of Hamas having a meeting in his neighborhood and the consequences? Gaza is too small, he said. Where can they go?

Despite the damage, he says he supports Palestinian efforts to hit Israel, however ineffective. We dont have F-13s or 14s or 17s, or whatever they are, he said. What do we have? These little rockets, like needle pricks. And the Israelis exaggerate the impact of these needles and say were destroying their state! But we have to resist any way we can.

All right, it's terrible that innocent civilians are being killed or injured in this conflict, on any side...right? That's the point of these statements isn't it? Whether the innocent civilian is in Lebanon, Gaza or Nehariya - it's tragic when they are hurt. Well are any innocent civilians being hurt in Israel by Arabs? Aside from a non-detailed sentence in the beginning, I wouldn't know that from this article, would I? Clearly, there are no innocent civilians with tragic stories from Israel interviewed in this article. True objectivity would have required quotes from non-academic/governmental Israelis giving their opinions or stories of similar tragic incidents - just like the Arab civilian opinion was voiced. Where is the Israeli pain and anguish? Is there any? I wouldn't know from this article one way or another, now would I? In fact, I wouldn't even know for sure that Israeli civilians in Israel were being killed by non-Israelis at all! Because there is none of that in this article - because the idea is NOT to present an objective view of the situation, rather it is to paint the Israelis in a certain way and the Arabs in a certain way.

Exhibit D:

Terrorists use the population and live among them, Ms. Livni said. Its difficult to target like a surgery. Unfortunately, civilians sometimes pay the price of giving shelter to terrorists. Under pressure or not, she said, citing Israeli intelligence, many civilians in southern Lebanon have Katyusha and other rockets under their beds.

When you go to sleep with a missile, she said, you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile.

GREAT "Rah rah we're right, go Israel" quote. I love it, and she's 100% right. So the Israeli Foreign Ministry is basically saying that those who collaborate with terrorists deserve whatever they get. Ok, we're not GOING AFTER civilians, but if you're caught on the wrong side...oh well...oops...don't consort with terrorists and you'll be fine. This "rah rah" sentiment is further expanded upon in

Exhibit E:

There is nostalgia, Mr. Dromi said, for the good old days, when we had deterrence, and when it failed, we went to a real war, kicked butt and went home.

Those days are over, he said, but theres a yearning for something lost. Olmert is trying to bring back some of this deterrence.

Wow! Now THAT is a pretty brazen statement...so there were two academics (non-governmental) they chose to interview on the Israeli side. The other guy - a columnist for the liberal Haaretz newspaper (the left-leaning nature of which is NOT disclosed) - to paraphrase essentially says that the Israelis should have negotiated through the UN instead of responding with force.

In any case, the Israeli academics are saying that a) the Israelis should NOT have attacked and b) that the main reason for the attack is for NOSTALGIC "we can still kick butt" reasons?? It's NOT about self-defense?? How about showing an academic that AGREES with the Israeli response? As if that's not enough, the only Arab academic quoted in the article (shockingly!) believes also that the Israelis are not justified and that the Arabs are being "held hostage" in Gaza! Wow, academics on all sides UNITE! And to further add fuel to the fire...

Exhibit F:

Referring to complaints that Israel was using disproportionate force, Dan Gillerman, Israels United Nations ambassador, said at a rally of supporters in New York this week, Youre damn right we are.

YEAH! GO ISRAEL! KICK SOME ASS! So basically, the government, as represented by Livni and Gillerman say attackattackattack and the academics (on BOTH sides) agree that this isn't about self-defense. Seems to me like the "smart people" (the academics) are all about peace, while the "politicians" (the government) are all about war. Seems to me it's obvious which side WE should be on. Obviously the academics are more honest, having no personal agendas and the government is all about rallying support so they can stay in power. Boy talk about OBJECTIVE!

And finally...I bring to you the Hezbollah and Hamas leadership quotes from the article. After all, true objectivity would require including statements from the "other side's" leadership since we have Israeli leadership being quoted. So let's see what they said...

Exhibit G:

Hamas quote: ????

Exhibit H:

Hezbollah quote: ????

Wait, nevermind there were no quotes from their leadership. What happened, they couldn't use any of Nasrallah's quotes because they are decidedly more bloodthirsty than the Israeli leadership quotes? Why don't they quote something from Ismail Haniya or the late, great Rantizi or Sheikh Yassin? Why don't they quote anything from Khalid Meshaal who's enjoying unhindered freedom in Syria? Why don't they quote anything from Faoud Siniora about how he is SWEARING that he will finally re-assert the Lebanese government's authority over South Lebanon after having 16 years (or at the very least 6 or at the VERY VERY least 2 years)?

I'll tell you why, because as usual, a blatant attempt at directing your opinion was cleverly disguised as an "objective" article. It's not about a DISCUSSION over whether or not Israel is going overboard...it's about saying that they ARE going overboard and the government is basically saying "oh well" ! Slanderous! Sadly, this is the norm at the NY Times and in fact in most newspapers (on both sides). This is why I generally don't read opinion peices from either side (except for the Arab side because I like to see what they say about us). I prefer to get my opinions from raw facts.

By the time you reach the end about Livni's "it's always a bad choice it's just a matter of which choice is worse" (paraphrasing of course) quote, of COURSE it seems corny because you've already been put in a different frame of mind by the rest of the article.

Don't believe the hype folks.

Ben Wedeman is a biased peice of garbage

Please excuse the upcoming copy/paste job. I don't want to give anyone a reason to give this story anymore hits than it already has so I'm just reproducing the entire thing here. If anyone doubts its validity, the source can be found here.

It's a story by CNN Middle East correspondent extraordinaire, Ben Wedeman.

Enjoy:

Reporter offers Bush a Gaza, West Bank misery tour

Story Highlights

CNN's Ben Wedeman says Bush won't see the plight of Gaza and the West Bank

Gaza hospital director says babies are dying due to equipment failures

Gazan: "Our leaders are either Israeli collaborators, asses, or mentally unstable"

By Ben Wedeman
CNN


Editor's note: In our Behind the Scenes series, CNN correspondents share their experiences in covering news and analyze the stories behind the events.


Palestinian men and children carry anti-Bush banners during a protest in Gaza City.

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Air Force One touched down in Tel Aviv on Wednesday. President Bush has come to the Holy Land for the first time as president of the United States.

But he's trapped inside his security bubble, his every step mapped out in great and precise detail by teams of security experts and handlers. In the end he'll see a side of this unhappy land that bears as much resemblance to reality as Hollywood does to real life.

I spend a lot of my time covering the West Bank and Gaza: here's what I see, and he won't.

He won't be going to Gaza, the Palestinian territory that is under the rule of Hamas. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States. Watch what Bush won't see »

Gaza today is a wasteland. Since Hamas took power, the Israeli government has made it extremely difficult for Gazans to travel outside their crowded strip of land along the Mediterranean. Israel has also severely restricted imports in Gaza to essential humanitarian goods. Four out of every five Palestinians depend on international food aid, according to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency. No one is starving, but the economy has come to a virtual standstill.

President Bush won't see the hospital wards where babies, just weeks old, are dying because their doctors can't get permission from Israeli authorities to go to Israel for treatment as they did in the past.

Earlier this week, I visited the intensive care unit in Gaza's Nasser Pediatric Hospital. Hospital director, Dr. Anwar Khalil, explained that a third of their incubators have broken down because of a lack of spare parts. The electricity goes out on a regular basis because the power is cut up to eight hours a day after Israel reduced fuel supplies.

Israeli leaders insist they're trying to pressure Hamas militants from firing locally made missiles into Israel, a near daily occurance. But to the vast majority of Gazans -- who have nothing to do with the missiles, who are powerless to stop the militants -- it amounts to collective punishment.

In Gaza, they blame Israel. They blame the United States, which supports Israel's policy toward Hamas. They also blame their own leaders.

"We are cursed," said Iyad Sarraj, a Gaza psychiatrist and a human rights activist. "Our leaders are either Israeli collaborators, asses, or mentally unstable."

Sarraj warns that what he describes as the siege of Gaza will blow up in the face of Israel in another intifada, or uprising. "From the first intifada, which was only stone throwing, to the second intifada, which brought suicide bombing, the third intifada will be much, much worse, and I suspect that it will be chemical weapons and chemical warfare."

But none of my sources who are intimately familiar with the weaponry available to militant groups has mentioned that as a possibility. There are indications that the militants in Gaza, left to their own devices, are up to no good. I was told by reliable sources that Hamas is busy developing new and more effective weapons -- rockets with propellant resistant to humidity, higher explosive payloads and longer ranges as well as roadside bombs and other explosive devices. Weapons are being stockpiled, and tunnels are being dug all over Gaza in anticipation of an Israeli invasion. Little in life in Gaza is inevitable, but death and destruction.

President Bush went to Muqata'a, the headquarters of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah in the West Bank.

But he didn't travel around the West Bank to see checkpoints like the one in Hawara, south of Nablus, where Palestinians wait, often for hours, in the winter cold, waiting to be allowed by young Israeli soldiers to go to their homes, universities, businesses, doctor's appointment, or to visit a relative or a friend.

If Bush got through Hawara to Nablus, he'd find a city where the Palestinian Authority, which the United States and Israel are supposed to be supporting, is rapidly losing credibility every time Israeli forces close down the city to round up militants, as they did over the weekend. Israel may have valid security reasons for going in, but these operations do irreparable damage to the standing of Palestinian leaders such as U.S.-backed President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Sallam Fayyad, now often described here as Israeli collaborators.


Maybe when the U.S. president went to Bethlehem Thursday, he may have seen what Israel calls its security barrier -- a 24-foot-high concrete wall encircling most of the town. Israel put it up to stop suicide bombings, a measure that appears to be working when it come to cutting down on the number of attacks. But the Palestinians call it the "racist apartheid wall." The wall has all but destroyed the local economy, cutting Bethlehem off from much of its farmland and reducing the flood of tourists to a trickle.

If he had some spare time -- and a convincing disguise -- I'd be happy to take Bush on a tour of my beat. I'll do the driving.


Source: CNN.com

What an unbelievable pile of DRECK. So if I'm reading this right...the only people suffering in Israel are PALESTINIANS at the hand of the evil Israelis?! Really? Are you serious Ben?

Tell that to the settlers thrown out of their homes in Gaza in a futile attempt to grant Palestinians autonomy and freedom

Tell that to the Jews in Sderot and the western Negev (which last time I checked wasn't part of ANY "occupation") who have to deal with a neverending nightmare hailstorm of Qassam rockets

Tell that to the Jews of northern Israel who had their homes destroyed and lost everything in the Lebanon war last year

Tell that to the family of Israeli soldiers who are grieving because they lost a son or a daughter or both in one of the murderous intifadas your buddies in the Hamas government instigated

You say "Gaza today is a wasteland" as if up until the vile Israeli seige it was the cultural center of the Middle East. As if Israel destroyed a wonderful paradise and beacon of hope for Arabs everywhere. Well tell me Ben, answer me this question, was it Israelis who launched a coup against Fatah? Was it Israelis who threw Fatah leaders off high rise apartment buildings? Was it Israelis who hoard international assistance money and uses it to build Qassam rockets instead of food and other necessities?

WHY is Israel cutting off supplies to Gaza Ben? When did Israel start doing this? Was it during the 2000-2003 suicide attack campaign? Was it during the 1st intifada? Was it after Hamas pulled off its bloody coup? No Ben, it was only as a last resort, after warning Hamas for months that this was coming.

What would you expect Israel to do, Ben?

I want to point out something else in your story, a particularly galling segment:

Israel calls its security barrier -- a 24-foot-high concrete wall encircling most of the town. Israel put it up to stop suicide bombings, a measure that appears to be working when it come to cutting down on the number of attacks. But the Palestinians call it the "racist apartheid wall." The wall has all but destroyed the local economy, cutting Bethlehem off from much of its farmland and reducing the flood of tourists to a trickle.

First of all, get your facts straight. Israel does not call it a "security barrier" they call it a "security FENCE" because that's what it is in the VAST majority of places. Do you know why it has to be a wall in some places Ben? Because the Palestinians who not-so-surprisingly call it a "racist apartheid wall" SHOOT THROUGH THE FENCE AT INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN. They do this Ben, not to hunt for food that as you say, they so desperately need...rather they do this to MURDER JEWS.

But you don't care about Jews do you? You're only concerned with the plight of Palestinians. Because to you Ben, Jewish blood is cheap. Why else would someone speak so negatively about a NON-VIOLENT device that by his own admission "works" at preventing suicide bombings?

Pretend for a minute Ben, that you had real responsibility as a leader of human beings instead of just journalistic responsibility (which you obviously don't believe in either). But for a minute, pretend you actually were responsible for real people. Now your people have a thriving economy. Your neighboring country has no economy. Your neighbors rely on your economy and being able to cross into your country to work and support their families. But the leaders of their country are constantly calling for your destruction. They send people to MURDER your civilians by disguising themselves as workers. The people in this country don't pay you taxes, don't serve in your military and take the money they earn in your country and use it in their own country.

So Ben, what would you, as a leader do if your citizens were under constant attack by citizens of a different country. Who are you responsible to protect? The people that elected you, or the people that are murdering the people that elected you. You jackass.

But then why would anyone be surprised by this lack of ethical journalism? After all this is the same guy that reported on the "Qana massacre" during the Lebanon war without actually taking the time to question all the holes in the story.

This is the same Ben Wedeman that when Alan Johnston was released sung the praises of Hamas as if they rescued him rather than being accomplices to his kidnapping. The same Ben Wedeman that sung the praises of Hamas as a stabilizing force by making statements like:

Regardless of what you think about Hamas, it's a much calmer place in Gaza now

and that with Hamas in power and factional fighting "over" it

certainly opens up Gaza in a way that it wasn't opened before and for ordinary Palestinians, certainly life is somewhat less dangerous in Gaza.

and finally

at least for the time being, does seem to have come to an end. The kidnapping is over. So there is a hope that Gaza will enjoy a period of stability. But you know how Gaza is. It doesn't seem to last for long.

That's right Ben, a period of stability. Kind of like the period of stability in Germany between 1933-1938. And yes the kidnapping is "over" for Alan Johnston, but isn't there still another kidnapping in progress?? But of course, Jewish blood, like Gilad Shalit's, is cheap. So why bother reporting on it.

No Ben, you'll keep reporting only on the Palestinian side of the coin. It's only bad for Arabs in the Middle East. No Jews are suffering. And you're right, the president won't be visiting Gaza on this trip. But it's not because he doesn't care about Palestinians, it's because he doesn't hang out with Hamas thugs.

But that never seemed to bother you, did it?



You jerk.