From the Leftist:

Dr. Einat Wilf on Zionism – Full Interview

How can the Jews honestly deal with these crazy people, you can’t!

Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy (MSA) today released its “Terrorists in Suits” report, which reveals over a whopping 100 links shared between the internationally-designated terrorist organizations Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and at least 13 anti-Israel BDS promoting NGOs.

Click to Download the report MSA-Terrorists-In-Suits-English-1

Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs has released a report exposing the antisemitic agenda being the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS). “BDS is an anti-Semitic campaign led by supporters of terror with one purpose: the elimination of the Jewish state.”
Click to Download the report MSA-report-Behind-the-Mask

This is what Israel had before the leftist Peace Plans

Israel and land re-liberated in the 1967 Six Day War

Israel Map after Six Day War of 1967

Our Historic Homeland Land under King David

Map of the 12 Tribes of Israel

The Arabs and their Leftist Supporters need to grow up, get a life and think of the bigger picture of the Middle East. Forget about the past and think of your future. Unless your future is Death like Hamas. The Jews of Israel need to develop the land of Israel and forget about the Arabs. The Arabs Claim Nakba, the Jews that were expelled from Islamic countries have the same claims against the Islamic Countries.

Why Are There Still Palestinian Refugees?

If you think there are Palestinian people look at their roots, their surname or family name.

UNRWA’s Anti-Semitic Teachers Exposed in 130-Page UN Watch Report

‘Unprecedented’ UN report on anti-Sermitism

Landmark UN report details right-wing, left-wing, and Islamic anti-Semitism.
Arutz Sheva Staff, 23September2019 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/269320

The United Nations released an interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief on the “Combatting anti-Semitism to Eliminate Discrimination and Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.” This report to the Human Rights Council follows recent addresses by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on anti-Semitism and religious freedom.

The report summarizes that anti-Semitic violence, discrimination, and expressions of hostility are “serious obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief,” and the “frequency of antisemitic incidents appears to be increasing in magnitude” as does the “prevalence of anti-Semitic attitudes and the risk of violence against Jewish individuals and sites ” is significant. If left unchecked by governments, anti-Semitism “poses risks not only to Jews, but also to members of other minority communities.”

The report has a number of key findings, including the rise of anti-Semitism from three main sources: “growing use of antisemitic tropes by white supremacists including neo-Nazis and members of radical Islamist groups”; increase in “‘left-wing’ antisemitism [that] employ anti-Semitic narratives or tropes in the course of expressing anger at policies or practices of the Government of Israel”; and “notes claims that the objectives, activities and effects of the Boycott Divestement Sanctions (BDS) movement are fundamentally anti-Semitic.” The report notes that in the US in 2017, 58 percent (1,749) of religiously-motivated bias “were driven by anti-Semitic bias.”Governments also enact laws and policies that restrict Jewish practice, including limiting kosher slaughter methods or barring Jews from political participation in higher office.

The report identifies steps that government, civil society organizations, and the media can take to limit expressions of anti-Semitism. These include using the “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism” that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance drafted in 2016, investing in education and training, and requiring governments to acknowledge that “anti-Semitism poses a threat to stability and security, and that antisemitic incidents require prompt, unequivocal responses from leaders,” with party leaders “promptly, clearly, and consistently reject[ing] manifestations of anti-Semitism within their parties and in the public discourse.”

In response to the report, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, commented that “we welcome the release of this unprecedented report on the subject of anti-Semitism. The report reflects the organizational change towards Israel. The assertion that the BDS movement encourages anti-Semitism is an important UN statement. As I have said many times, anti-Semitism has no place in our society, and must be denounced everywhere and from every platform.”

Rabbi Lord Sacks on Anti-Semitism

Bari Weiss and Deborah Lipstadt discuss the rise of antisemitism at home and abroad

Brooke Goldstein at the Nuremberg Symposium – May 4, 2016

The Arabs and their BDS leftist supporters completely ignore Syria

The War on Syria’s Children

BDS at the Extremes

A story in Commentary about choices and behaviors within anti-Trump organizations pointed me towards this interesting (and accessible) piece of academic research that discusses experiments on the impact extreme tactics have on popular support for political causes and organizations.

The paper looks at what “counter-normative, disruptive, or harmful” political tactics do for two key goals of any social movement: (1) raising the profile of a movement and its causes and (2) gaining support from the wider public (which can take the form of increased membership, donations, or general friendliness towards the movement’s goals).

In theory, profile-raising and support-building should go hand-in-hand since the public needs to know about a group and understand its mission and purpose before they can support it.  But in our media-saturated age, it often requires extreme tactics to gain attention – especially when competing with other causes, or with other individuals and organizations claiming to represent your issue.

This is where extreme tactics such as “inflammatory rhetoric, blocking traffic, and damaging property” come into play since such rhetoric and actions are likely to get you on the nightly news (as well as more web site hits and social media likes) than quietly cultivating the public through rational discourse.  But, as it turns out, even those friendly to causes such as animal rights, Black Lives Matter or the anti-Trump movement (the subjects of the study linked above) become less likely to support those causes if their proponents turn to such extreme tactics.

In the meaty discussion section of their piece (starting at page 17 if you want to skip the description of their experiments), the authors of the study try to answer the question of why social movements turn to such tactics, given that they seem to be empirically counterproductive.  One explanation they suggest is that participants don’t understand or appreciate the negative impact of extreme tactics, confusing increased attention with increased support.

The authors also qualify their findings by pointing out that some activists might have goals outside of winning popular support, towards which extreme tactics might make sense, priorities such as “winning funding, impacting powerful elites, psychologically empowering disadvantaged individuals, fostering commitment in existing supporters, and cathartic expression.”

To this list I would add another item drawn from experience dealing with the decades-long extremism of the BDS “movement:” fantasy-politics in which the public does not even exist to protestors, except as props in a drama taking place within the protestor’s own individual and collective heads.

Scientific evidence that the BDSer’s choice of tactics is likely to limit their effectiveness is a useful thing to know.  But such insights can also guide our choices in fighting against BDS and other forms of anti-Israel propaganda, highlighting the importance of tactics and language that will make those we want to persuade feel not just good about us but good about themselves for supporting our cause.

Comment: In other words the BDS protesters are Violent and CRAZY!

JerusalemCats Comment: To the BDS Nazis and their supporters:
You have no idea how evil the terrorist are that you are supporting.

• They will kidnap your children,
• They will murder your children,
• They will murder you anywhere in the world,
• Whatever Race or Color,
• Man or Woman,
• Gay or Straight,
• Rich or Poor,
• Liberal or Conservative,
• Democrat or Republican.
• It does not matter what they call themselves – Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah or ISIS, They are all the same.
• Our main enemy is not Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah or ISIS but the real Puppet-masters; The US and The EU

How to counter the 20 most popular anti-Israel arguments

INTO THE FRAY: The anti-BDS effort

BDS is not an attempt to delegitimize Israel, but a product of Israel’s delegitimization; it is a consequence, not a cause, of that delegitimization

The Palestinian narrative claims that the Jews of Israel are colonialist interlopers who stole the land from the Palestinians, its rightful owners. The narrative makes no distinction between Tel Aviv and Hebron. All of Israel is a crime against the Arab world. All of Israel is illegitimate. – Caroline Glick, June 1, 2017.

I recently participated in a rather animated televised debate on the new English language channel, ILTV, dealing with the BDS campaign against Israel.

Given the objective time constraints of such a program, it is inevitable that one cannot fully elaborate on all the points raised in it, or adequately articulate arguments to underpin the positions taken on it. Accordingly, I should like to devote this week’s column to a more detailed, orderly and comprehensive presentation of the issues I broached in that debate.

Sign of a welcome change of attitude?

Late last month, it was announced that the Israeli government had approved a plan to set up a fund of $72 million to counter the ongoing international BDS campaign against Israel. According to this plan, the funds will be allocated to a yet-to-be-established not-for-profit organization whose board will be made up of government officials and donors from abroad, and which will oversee what is reportedly to be the first major “civil-society infrastructure servicing the State of Israel and the pro-Israel community in the fight against the de-legitimization of Israel.”

The planned initiative appears to signal a welcome—and long overdue—change in the hitherto dismissive attitude of Israeli officialdom towards public diplomacy and towards the pernicious effects such disregard was having not only on Israel’s international standing, but also on the predicament it created for pro-Israeli advocates abroad.

This detrimental insensitivity was starkly displayed by none other than the person who ought to have been most alive to it – Israel’s then-incumbent Foreign Minister, Avigdor Liberman, a few years ago, in a regrettable exchange with a young pro-Israeli activist at an international conference in New York.

During question time from the audience, Liberman was asked by a young pro-Israel undergraduate activist (Justin Hayet of Binghamton University): “What is the Foreign Ministry doing to stand with college students, like myself, to fight BDS on campus?”

A small step in the right direction

Dispensing with any semblance of civility, and any expression of encouragement for the voluntary efforts of young pro-Zionist activists in defense of Israel on hostile campuses, Liberman brusquely conveyed to him that endeavors like his were essentially unnecessary, and largely a waste of time—since, according to the then-Foreign Minister, BDS should not be a great source of concern for Israel. (For Hayet’s impassioned and dismayed response – see here)

Liberman’s response was, of course, disturbing and, as I wrote back then: “it encapsulated all the misperceptions, and mismanagement that have characterized Israel’s diplomatic strategy. In particular, it spotlighted the incomprehension and incompetence Israeli officialdom has displayed in the conduct of our public diplomacy, going a long way to explain Israel’s growing international beleaguerment.”

Accordingly, the newly announced initiative appears, overall, to be a step in the right direction, and seemingly heralds a refreshing, new awareness of the vital importance of public diplomacy in the nation’s strategic arsenal.

Indeed, in some aspects it resembles—albeit on a far smaller scale—measures I have long advocated.

Almost half a decade ago, I called for setting up an extra-ministerial “national authority for the conduct of strategic diplomacy” which would “interface with Zionist NGOs and help finance their pro-Israel activities, enhance their impact and expand their reach – as a counterweight to the massive funding that post- and anti-Zionist NGOs receive from foreign governments”.

Moreover, given the strategic importance and urgency of enhancing Israel’s public diplomacy performance, I urged assigning 1% of the state budget (then $1 billion, now considerably more) for this purpose annually —far more (almost ten-fold!) than the budget planned for the newly envisaged entity.

“Intellectual warriors, not slicker diplomats”

In broad brush strokes, I set out the kind of activities, with which this strategic diplomacy authority would be tasked, and for which the prescribed budget would be utilized.

 • Its activities would be assertively offensive, geared to uncompromisingly attacking and exposing the mendacious and malicious nature of Israel’s adversaries – a necessary condition for international understanding of Israel’s policy imperatives.

• Its staff would not be professional diplomats but articulate and committed intellectual ideologues, neither bound by the constraints of diplomatic protocol nor versed in the niceties of diplomatic etiquette but rather adept in the mechanism of mass media, cyberspace and social networks (see my “Intellectual warriors, not slicker diplomats”).

• Their task would not be to interact with foreign counterparts but to wage diplomatic warfare, at home and abroad, with a $1bill. budget at their disposal to saturate the Web with polished, professional Zionist content – on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and by means of full-page “infomercials” in the leading printed media.”

In this, there is a fair amount of overlap between my prescription and the reportedly planned operation of the nascent anti-BDS non-profit initiative.

There are, however, some important differences—apart from those of scale—between the two proposals. These relate to substantive issues of scope, focus and ongoing proactivity.

Focusing on the symptoms, not the sickness

According to press reports, the creators of the planned entity envisage it operating on “a regular basis to counter pressure applied to artists, performers and commercial enterprises not to engage with Israel. But it would shift into high gear at sensitive periods such as fighting, waves of terrorist attacks, and anti-Israel votes at international forums”

Clearly, then, it would appear that the nature of the planned operation will be essentially reactive, rather than proactive, designed almost exclusively to deal with –i.e. rebuff, negate, discredit—BDS-related attacks against Israel, with the level of intensity of such activities determined by largely exogenous events such as hostile military or diplomatic offensives against Israel.

These are grave shortcomings, which are liable to seriously undercut the efficacy of the prospective initiative—for two different, but interrelated, reasons, the one substantive, the other methodological.

The first of these relates to the restriction of the focus to BDS related activity. In many ways, this is like focusing on the symptoms of an illness, rather than on its origins, in search of a remedy. Sadly, it is likely to be just as ineffective.

For what is crucial to realize is that, in essence, BDS is not an attempt to delegitimize Israel, but rather a product of Israel’s delegitimization. In other words, it is a consequence, rather than a cause of that delegitimization.

Two incompatible narratives

On reflection, this should be an almost self-evident truth. After all, if Israel was perceived internationally as legitimate, anything remotely resembling the BDS campaign against it would be inconceivable.

Accordingly, without contending with the underlying sources of the delegitimization of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, there is little hope of effectively stifling the impulses that give rise to phenomena such as the BDS movement.

In this regard, it is crucial to grasp two things:

The first is, as Caroline Glick alludes to in the introductory excerpt above, the Palestinian narrative and the Zionist narrative are, for all intents and purposes, inconsistent with each other. In other words, they are mutually exclusive narratives.

Accordingly, enhancing the legitimacy of one necessarily implies undermining the legitimacy of the other. (For a more detailed elaboration of this matter see Deciphering delegitimization).

The second is that it is the Palestinian narrative, and its perceived legitimacy that underpins the legitimacy of the claim for Palestinian statehood. In other words, undermining the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative undermines the validity of the claim for Palestinian statehood.

Thus, as I have argued elsewhere, “for the notion of a secure Israel [as the nation-state of the Jews] to regain legitimacy, the notion of a Palestinian state must be discredited and removed from the discourse as a possible means of resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict.”  

A viable Israel as “occupation”

Jerusalem Cats Comment: We need to listen to Rabbi Meir Kahane and transfer the hostile Palestinians out of Eretz Israel,

But the converse is also true: As long as the Palestinian narrative is perceived as legitimate—and, hence, the claim for Palestinian statehood is seen as valid—the legitimacy of a secure Israel will always be challenged—and hence vulnerable to measures that arise from that challenge, such as the BDS campaign.,

For those who find this too disturbingly adversarial to accept, I would refer them to an article authored by Omar Dajani and Ezzedine Fishere, published in the prestigious “Foreign Affairs” and entitled “The Myth of Defensible Borders”. In it, the authors – an adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team and an adviser to the then-Egyptian foreign minister, respectively—write, not without significant justification: “A policy of defensible borders would… perpetuate the current sources of Palestinian insecurity, further delegitimizing an agreement in the public’s eyes…”

They therefore conclude “… Palestinians are likely to regard defensible borders as little more than occupation by another name.”

Consequently, for any settlement to be perceived as legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinian public, Israel must resign itself to being indefensible—as claims for it to be defensible (i.e. viable) would delegitimize it as an occupier!

Thus, as I pointed out in The political algorithms of the Arab Israeli conflict, there is a chain of algorithmic-like reasoning, which inexorably demonstrates that Israel’s acceptance of the legitimacy of Palestinian national claims has, in effect, laid the foundations for the assault on its own legitimacy.

An inconvenient, but inevitable, conclusion

The architects of any anti-BDS enterprise will ignore this reasoning at the peril of fatally undermining the success of their endeavor.

For as long as the Palestinian-Arabs are perceived as having a legitimate claim to statehood, any counterclaim by Israel to ensure its viability will be perceived as thwarting that claim –thereby, ipso facto, delegitimizing such counterclaims—and, hence, exposing the very legitimacy of the notion of a viable Israel to attack—such as the BDS initiative.

Accordingly, just as focusing on reducing the temperature of a patient suffering from a severe infection will not cure that infection, so focusing on BDS will not remedy the delegitimization drive against Israel. Just as the source of the infection must be diagnosed and treated, so must the sources of the delegitimization of Israel.

Clearly then, if the Palestinian narrative is diagnosed as the source of the de-legitimization of the Zionist narrative, then the re-legitimization of the latter calls for the de-legitimization of the former. No amount of politically-correct gobbledygook, decrying such a stark “zero-sum” assessment, can obscure this inconvenient, but inevitable, conclusion.

The operational implications of this are clear.

The BDS campaign is not—and cannot—be treated as a “stand alone” problem. To eradicate it, one must eradicate its root causes—and since the roots of BDS sprout from the delegitimization of the Zionist narrative, the causes of this delegitimization must be eradicated.  However, as the delegitimization of the Zionist narrative can be traced to the legitimization of the incompatible, mutually exclusive Palestinian narrative, the unavoidable imperative is that for any anti-BDS initiative to be successful in the long run, it must focus efforts on the discrediting and delegitimizing of the Palestinian narrative.

Expose mendacious myths underpinning a fallacious narrative

Accordingly, any successful long term anti-BDS strategy cannot confine itself to responding to manifestations of anti-Israel calls for boycotts, sanctions or divestment—however infuriating these might be, and however telling such responses may be.

It must go on a genuine, proactive offensive against the primary sources of those calls—by resolutely and relentless exposing the mendacious myths that underpin the fallacious Palestinian narrative, while highlighting how these contrast with the fact-based foundations of the Zionist narrative.

After all, if the Palestinian narrative is discredited and delegitimized, who would want to instigate boycotts, sanctions or divestments in order to endorse or promote it?

,

Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

This is what the Arabs Can get if they have a brain and each sect and tribe can live in “peace”

One proposed map if the Middle East

 The Arabs need to think twice before their Imams scream “Kill  the Jews”

Mahmoud Abbas Contradicts the Palestinian Narrative on Refugees

If they want death and destruction then treat them like the Nazis that they are. Do the same thing to them as the Allies did to Nazi Germany in World War 2.

READY TO ROAST MARSHMALLOWS, KIDS?: A Gaza summer camp. Were any of these children among the “civilian casualties” that Hamas is claiming? (screenshot: from a Reuters slideshow in June)

Jewish Students need to defend themselves against the BDS thugs. Know your rights; You are not a Dhimmi, a Floor Rag or a Target for Nazis. Defend yourselves! If there is “Blood on the Street” make sure that it is their “Blood on the Street” and not yours. Learn to protect yourself. Create a local JDL (JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE) chapter, learn self defense, Join the IDF before University with the Lone Soldiers Program.

Colleges and Universities cannot, for even a moment, tolerate or excuse the violences advocated by the BDS twisted totalitarian mindset. The BDS thugs should be made to pay for encouraging a campaign of violence on campus. BDS is not “Free Speech” under US law. (United States v. O’Brien). BDS is illegal in Israel and BDS Threats of violence and intimidation against the Jews and their supporters are illegal everywhere.

BDS is about Hate and Antisemitism

BDS leader succinctly describes what they consider “success”
Haaretz has a piece about how a large number of artists are coming to perform in Israel this year despite the BDS movement:
Most Israeli producers say that the boycotters like Roger Waters have failed:…
But Haaretz also had to interview BDSers as well. Like Ronnie Barkan:“One can note a significant change in the way the world perceives Israel. It’s now seen as a leper state maintaining a cruel occupation, apartheid and a colonial enterprise. This is what is believed on all campuses in the United States and even in some Jewish communities there. Communities are becoming increasingly critical of Israel’s crimes, with the fastest-growing organization being the Jewish Voice for Peace…”

Here he admits the entire point of BDS is to portray Israel as a “leper state maintaining a cruel occupation, apartheid and a colonial enterprise.”…
It is very simple. BDS is about crazed, irrational hate, that has far more in common with antisemitism than with human rights. And Ronnie Barkan shows this perfectly.

‘Blacklist’ of BDS groups released

Full list of organizations to be prevented entry into Israel published. Interior Minister: ‘These people slander the Land.’

Ido Ben Porat, 07 January 2018 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/240361

The Israeli government has compiled a list anti-israel organizations backing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement whose activists will not be allowed to enter Israel.

These organizations operate consistently against the State of Israel, the government has argued, while putting pressure on other organizations, institutions and countries to boycott Israel.

The organizations’ activities are carried out through a false propaganda campaign aimed at undermining Israel’s legitimacy in the world.

The names of the boycott organizations will be transferred to the Immigration and Population Authority in the Ministry of the Interior for the purpose of preventing entry into Israel.

Interior Minister Aryeh Deri said, “As head of the Entry into Israel Law, I made it clear that I will use my authority to prevent the entry of members of organizations and individuals whose sole purpose is to harm the State of Israel and its security. These people take advantage of the law and our hospitality to act against Israel and slander the Land. I will work against this in every way. ”

Minister of Strategic Affairs Gilad Erdan said that “the consolidation of the list is another step in our struggle against the incitement and lies of the boycott organizations. No country would allow visitors who come to harm the country to enter it, and certainly when the goal is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state.”

The complete list:

Europe

• AFPS( (The Association France Palestine Solidarité)

• BDS France

• BDS Italy

• ECCP (The European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine)

• FOA (Friends of Al-Aqsa)

• IPSC (Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign)

• Norgeׂׂ (The Palestine Committee of Norway) Palestinakomitee

• PGS- (Palestine Solidarity Association in Sweden) Palestinagrupperna i Sverige

• PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign)

• War on Want

• BDS Kampagne

US

• AFSC (American Friends Service Committee)

• AMP (American Muslims for Palestine)

• Code Pink

• JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace)

• NSJP (National Students for Justice in Palestine)

• USCPR (US Campaign for Palestinian Rights)

Jerusalem Cats Comment: What about “Americans for Peace Now’ – Supporters of the self hating, anti Israel group Shalom Achshav or New Israel Fund which pays for many leftist NGOs in Israel to cause problems in Israel.

Latin America

• BDS Chile

South Africa

• BDS South Africa

International

• BNC (BDS National Committee)

The real and unabridged ‘Black List’ of BDS groups

Lee Kaplan, 08 January 2018 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21530

14 Friends of Palestine (Marin, California)

Adalah-NY

Black Lives Matter

Boston 2 Palestine

Campus Action Network (part of Al Sharpton’s Action Network)

Christian Peacemaker Teams (Part of American Friends Service Committee)

Friends of Sabeel (FOSNA) with headquarters In Bethlehem, Christian anti-Semites

General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) San Francisco State

Global Exchange-Medea Benjamin’s group

Interfaith Peace Builders-Santa Cruz, California

Middle East Childrens’ Alliance in Berkeley, California

Mondoweiss website

Muste Foundation N.Y.

Norcal ISM, Free Palestine Movement, Free Gaza Movement (all three are Paul Larudee)

National Lawyers Guild

Presbyterian Synod

Rachel Corrie Foundation For Peace and Justice

South Bay Mobilization-San Jose, California

US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (pacbi.org)

United Church of Christ Palestine/Israel Network

United Methodist General Board of Church and Society

Vermonters for Just Peace

WESPAC Foundation-N.Y.

Women in Black

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

The above groups are  the more active ones, but there are many more. Also excluded from the list:

Olive Tree Initiative is in many California colleges subsidized by taxpayers

In addition, major Muslim groups that promote BDS in the US are:

Arab Action Network-Chicago

CAIR -Council on American Islam ic Relations

If Americans Knew- San Rafael, California

Ifnotnow

Muslim Public Affairs Committee

Muslim Students Association (most colleges)

Still other groups active in promoting BDS:

American Nazi Party www.nsm.org

Columbia BDS a.k.a. Apartheid Divest

Council for the National Interest -Saudi backed anti-Semites

Duke Divest-Duke University

International ANSWER-a Marxist coalition of groups seeking socialist takeover

International Socialist Organization- Marxists who advocate violent overthrow of US government

Jews For Justice For Palestinians- UK based ISM group

La Voz De Azatlan – Chicano group advocates US Southwest be ceded to Mexico

La Raza-Chicano Revolutionary group

Middle East Studies Association

Nation of Islam-Farrakhan

Veterans For Peace-Seattle

Veterans Today-Fake Veterans website

Who Profits – Dalit Baum  (In Israel and USA)

Despite media narrative, Palestinians are far from ‘woke’

By Adam Levick on 26December2018 https://ukmediawatch.org/2018/12/26/despite-media-narrative-palestinians-are-far-from-woke/
Here’s the headline accompanying a Dec. 25th Independent article about Palestinian reaction to upcoming Israeli elections, written by their Mid-East correspondent Bel Trew.

At first glance, the headline likely wouldn’t seem controversial.  However, if you reflect upon the assumption of the text, you can see an illustration of a larger pattern of media bias in their coverage the region.  The headline is culled from a paragraph in which a Palestinian Christian named Sami laments the prospects for peace and a two-state solution if another Likud government is formed – a government the Indy reporter described as “the most right-wing” in Israeli history.

Leaving aside the question regarding whether the current government is indeed the most right-wing in history, this framing, which permeates the article, sets up a dichotomy between putatively ‘far-right’ Israelis – in the context of a media which normally uses the word “right” as a pejorative – and, presumably, the more ‘progressive’ Palestinians who “fear” Israel’s dangerous rightward lurch.

Though this political contrast is the subtext of the article, Trew never explicitly assigns an ideology to the Palestinians, which is consistent with the manner in which reporters refrain from analyzing the ideology of Palestinians and their leaders – an omission nurtured by the tendency to view Palestinians as victims only, devoid of agency.  The media frame the conflict almost exclusively in terms of what Israel does or doesn’t do, which denies news consumers a fuller understanding of the conflict.

If journalists were to take Palestinian views and decisions seriously, their readers would see that Palestinians and their leaders are far more ‘right-wing’ than Israelis and their leaders on matters ranging from the treatment of women, support for violence and attitudes towards minorities. Polls from Pew Global and Anti-Defamation League (in 2013 and 2014) reveal the following:

• 40% of Palestinians think suicide bombing is sometimes justified.
• 89% of Palestinians think homosexuality is immoral.
• 89% of Palestinians think women must always “obey” their husband.
• 89% of Palestinians favor the imposition of sharia law into their society.
• 45% of Palestinians think honour killings are sometimes justifiable.
• 93% of Palestinians hold antisemitic views.

Palestinians, it seems, are not quite the peace and social justice warriors of media lore. They are arguably ‘far-right’, and certainly far from ‘woke’.

Whatever the outcome of the upcoming Israeli elections, we suggest taking with a grain of salt ideological characterisations of the new coalition, and treating with even a greater degree of skepticism idealized depictions of Palestinians that serve to reinforce the desired media narrative, yet have little if any relationship to reality.