Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Where’s the real Jewish hate site? (Hint: It’s pro-Israel)

BY MICHAEL LESHER


Jewish Press 0d10e
In May 2015, Washington Post columnist David Bernstein, after years of snarky comments about Jews who criticize Israel, named the Mondoweiss blog a “hate site.”
For those of you unfamiliar with Mondoweiss, the blog is subtitled “the War of Ideas in the Middle East” and includes a wealth of progressive reporting and commentary on Middle East issues, particularly the Israel-Palestine conflict. (Full disclosure: I’ve published a few pieces on Mondoweiss myself.) Bernstein’s aspersions against the site – particularly against co-founder Philip Weiss – were eloquently answered on the blog itself long ago, so I won’t bother going over that terrain except to note that the refutation hasn’t prompted any sort of retraction from the likes of David Bernstein.
But since Bernstein seems to take special exception to “hate sites” that discuss Israel and the Palestinians, it’s odd that neither he nor other bashers of Mondoweiss have exposed the vastly more offensive material to be found at the on-line site for the Jewish Press, the largest English-language Orthodox Jewish news outlet in the world, as far as I know. What follows is a recent and typical sampling.
In response to a story about West Bank Palestinians who were arrested for allegedly plotting to kidnap some Hebron settlers, a Jewish Press reader complained, “When in the hell [is] Israel going to learn to kill all these SOB’s?” Another reader agreed that arresting the accused wasn’t enough: “They should have just disappeared, never to be heard or seen, or fed, or mentioned. Erased” – advice to which two other posters promptly noted approval.
I should mention that every “comments” section on the Jewish Press site is emblazoned with a warning that “debate” must be conducted in “a civilized manner”; noting that “we are a religious Jewish website,” the editors explicitly urge posters to avoid “inappropriate language at all cost.” So it’s significant that the editors have never seen fit to take down the comments I’ve just quoted – nor this one, posted after two alleged Palestinian attackers were shot dead: “2 more Muslim skunks DEAD. Keep them dead Muslims coming! Eliminate the stink!” Or this one: “You can’t blame Muslims for the rise in rapes in Sweden. Logically, you have to blame Muslim penises for the rapes. Remove the penises and there are no more rapes in Sweden.”
In fact, the Jewish Press editors’ notion of “civilized” discourse wasn’t offended when a reader described the body of a 13-year-old girl shot dead by a West Bank “security guard” as “trash on the street” – nor when another reader complained that the guard didn’t simply murder the girl on sight, while noting optimistically that there was a good side to the story: “At least she can’t breed more terrorists.”
Amazing, yes? But then, according to their “comments” warning, the Jewish Press editors also forbid any post that “advocates violence (except against terrorists)” – yet they had no qualms when, after two Palestinians were reported killed, a reader posted, “Two down, millions to go.” Nor did the editors remove either of these similarly genocidal chestnuts:
“WHEN IS YISRAEL [sic] FINALLY GOING TO ONCE AND FOR ALL EXTERMINATE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE THESE [Palestinian] VERMIN?”
“Islam itself must be outlawed and eradicated.”
Since these posts were evidently within the bounds of the Jewish Press’ “no advocacy of violence (except against terrorists)” policy, one must conclude either that the Jewish Press editors consider every Palestinian and every last Muslim a terrorist, or else that the mass murder of Muslims isn’t “violence” – as defined by the Jewish Press, at any rate.
And lest anyone imagine that the only offensive material on the Jewish Press consists of readers’ posts, consider this column published on the site on January 21 by Moshe Feiglin, the racist wingnut who is also, alas, a member of Israel’s parliament. Feiglin’s latest Jewish Press column claims that Syrian refugees are deliberately fleeing to Western European countries in order to gang-rape “secular” women as part of a Muslim takeover strategy. Here is an excerpt:
[T]he motivation [for Syrians migrating to Europe] is not just economic…. Western Europe is the most secular place in the world. Most of humanity believes in G-d. Most Americans are believers. Western Europe, on the other hand, is an oasis of heresy. It is a culture that removed G-d from its consciousness. It eliminated G-d from daily life and imprisoned Him in museums. The intense pressure in the religion of “Allah hu akbar” naturally bursts into this faithless vacuum. It is pure physics. Intercontinental masculinity and femininity.
As if that weren’t hateful enough, the Jewish Press editors allowed Feiglin to insist that non-religious European women actually want to be raped – since they have no God, they need a man to dominate them:
Western Europe is on its knees and invites the noble Muslim wild-man to rape her….
Generations of exclusion of G-d gave rise to a hunger for authority and meaning. The police do not attempt to prevent the rape… Because in truth, they want the refugees. The battered wife syndrome, the subconscious, Markel’s politically correctness [sic], and those who invite the refugees – actually want them…. Because of the same hunger for absolute – violent – authority.
Were readers of the Jewish Press surprised by such neo-Nazi bigotry and misogyny? Not if one judges by their posted comments, one of which suggested that Syrians “ran to European countries where welfare benefits are generous and where liberalism will allow them to do as they please,” which is why “thousands of them [are] raping their way through New Years eve in Europe.”
But really, it’s no wonder readers weren’t shocked: for all its raw racism, Feiglin’s column wasn’t out of line for the Jewish Press. This week, the same site hosted an op-ed by one David Israel that defends the mass murder of Palestinians by Baruch Goldstein, and accuses an American rabbi who had the temerity to criticize such acts of “concoct[ing] a poisonous potion that “justifies maligning fellow Jews, libeling them, dubbing them murderers and thieves.” And so on.
So, at the moment, I’m waiting for the David Bernsteins of the media to devote a few words to the exposure of a real Jewish-oriented hate site. The proper target is obvious, and an honest journalist could do no less.
But, of course, a mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda wouldn’t dream of it.
 Judaism

WRITER
MICHAEL LESHER
Michael Lesher, a writer and lawyer, is the author of Sexual Abuse, Shonda and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities (McFarland & Co., Inc.).
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, January 22, 2016

WORLD’S WORST KEPT SECRET: WHY SAUDI IS FOLLOWING ISRAELI POLICY ON SECTARIANISM








In the wake of the beheading of Ayatullah Baqir al-Nimr, the Middle East has quickly reshaped its political landscape. In response to the execution, Iranian protesters stormed Saudi embassies in Tehran and Mashhad, setting ablaze the office in its capital. While Iran arrested sixty individuals involved and even sacked its Tehran commander of special forces[1], Foreign Ministers from the Gulf Cooperation Council met in Riyadh to issue a joint statement condemning the attacks as “terrorism” and accused Iran of “blatant interventions in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Saudi Arabia immediately announced the severing of diplomatic ties giving Iranian staff 48 hours to leave. Five days later, a Saudi airstrike struck Iran’s embassy in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa injuring several staff.[2]
Whilst the violence and rhetoric between Riyadh and Tehran may have been a predictable outcome, what has been surprising is the response from countries without direct involvement to the latest Saudi-Iranian confrontation. First came the announcement from Bahrain, expeditious in following their closest Gulf ally by cutting diplomatic relations. This was swiftly followed by the UAE in downgrading its diplomatic representation. While Qatar and Kuwait recalled their ambassadors, Jordan summoned Iran’s ambassador to condemn the attack and “Iranian interference.”
Even more curious however, was the reaction of several African states. Sudan, Somalia and the tiny Horn of Africa nation, Djibouti, also cut ties with Iran citing “solidarity with Saudi Arabia.” This unprecedented trans-continental “solidarity” has drawn distinctly little attention from political commentators, almost establishing its normalcy in the political world. Few questions have been raised such as ‘what reason do these countries have to involve themselves in the Saudi-Iranian dispute’ or ‘why was there no such reprimand against the Saudis after airstrikes on the Iranian embassy?’ The silence is deafening. And it’s not the first time in recent weeks a trans-continental alliance with Saudi Arabia as its pivot has been formed.
On the 15th of December 2015, Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Defence announced a 34 country military alliance “to fight terrorism.” Once again a passive and culpable media silence allowed the mendacity of such a notion to pass unquestioned. Isn’t this the same Saudi Arabia that is both the ideological and financial source of Islamic terrorism? In 2014 a “Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State” consisting of 59 countries was formed at the NATO headquarters in Brussels, while the US, France and Russia have all formed separate coalitions, thus why the need for an additional one? In 2015 the US dropped 23,000[3]bombs in their fight against terrorism, whilst Saudi Arabia hasn’t flown a mission against ISIS in 6 months;[4] if Saudi Arabia is so intent on fighting terrorism why have they been so inactive until now? In October, a Saudi diplomat even demanded Russia halt its attacks on terrorist groups in Syria.[5]
It is here that not only the intent but also the history of this coalition comes into question. It was first publicly floated, not by the Saudi’s but by Ami Ayalon, former director of Shin Bet, the Israeli intelligence Service; Ayalon said, “What should be the future of the Middle East, ten years from now? It should be based on several parameters. First of all we have to accept that it is very important to create a Sunni coalition.” When asked about the threat to Israel from Iran he replied, “If we are going to act unilaterally, without creating the atmosphere in the Middle East, it’s not only that we shall have to face the reaction… but if the assumption is, we are part of a coalition based on a kind of Sunni coalition, meaning Turkey, with Egypt, with Jordan, with Saudi Arabia (who) understand that the major conflict is with Shi’a lead by Iran, and they create this coalition that will face Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will… (trails off).”[6]
This vision for the Middle East should not be taken lightly, especially in light of admissions of covert Saudi-Israeli cooperation against Iran over a series of five meetings since 2014.[7] On June 5, 2015 Director-General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Dore Gold and Saudi General, Anwar Majed Eshki announced the new alliance at a conference in Washington in which General Eshki presented a seven point strategic plan for the region. Whilst number one was peace between Arab countries and Israel, number two was regime change in Iran.[8] While Israel and Saudi Arabia share little, the one thing they do share is Iranian resistance. How much easier would each of their projects be should they unite to remove the “lead” force of opposition? Retired Israeli general Shimon Shapira explained the union as, “We discovered we have the same problems and same challenges and some of the same answers.”[9] Elsewhere evidence of Saudi-Israeli ties mount as Israel provide medical care to wounded Saudi sponsored ISIS fighters.[10]
This growing proximity between the Muslim world and Israel is now visible. Traditional Muslim opposition to Israel has waned through a series of political, economic and military ties. In 2009 Israeli Foreign Ministry official Yacov Hadas stated, “The Gulf Arabs believe in Israel’s role because of their perception of Israel’s close relationship with the United States” adding Gulf states “believe Israel can work magic.”[11] In 2014, Turkish-Israeli trade attained a historic record, a particularly remarkable fact in the context of global economic difficulties.[12] Qatar trades plastics, machinery, computer equipment and medical instruments with Israel.[13]The Sisi era has also witnessed “unprecedented coordination between Israel and Egypt” as “Sisi communicates directly with Israeli prime minister Netanyahu.”[14]
Ayalon’s proposal is beyond stoking sectarian tensions. He is advocating a complete manipulation of the billion plus Sunni world into a regional civil war for the benefit of Israeli protection. Saudi Arabia is not Sunni, but rather promotes its own brand of puritanical Islam, a cocktail of militant Wahhabiism and extreme Arab nationalism, while Iran promotes its own understanding of politicised Shi’ism. By suggesting countries form a Sunni coalition to unite against Shi’as precludes that the Sunni community must think along sectarian fault lines and view Shiism as the existential threat, and not Israel. National interests must now be seen through the lens of a manufactured Sunni-Shia conflict and all for the removal of the regions prime source of support for Palestinian self-determination and resistance to Israel. And with the Saudi adoption of this scheme, Muslims are falling into the trap. Jamal Khashoggi, a leading Saudi propagandist, recently declared that Muslim countries have to decide if they were “with us or against us” when facing the Shi’a threat.[15] A recent poll of Saudi public opinion conducted by students at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, an Israeli university, found that a minority of the Saudi public viewed Israel as a major threat to their country and instead cited, by a 3-1 margin Iran as their primary object of concern.[16]
The Sunni coalition has been Saudi Arabia’s Plan B. Its first option was to fund each faction of terrorism invading Syria and Iraq over the last five years to force a pan-regional sectarian war. US Vice President Joe Biden elaborated on this at a speech at Harvard University saying, “They (the Saudi’s) were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shi’a war, they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tonnes of weapons into anyone who would fight. Except the people who were being supplied were Al-Nusra and Al-Qaida and the extremist elements of Jihadi’s coming from other parts of the world.”[17] What the Saudi’s hadn’t foreseen however, was Sunni-Shi’a coalitions in Iraq and Syria, liberating over a quarter of the land captured by the Islamic State.[18] As a result of the policy to fund sectarian extremists and a Sunni-Shia war failing, the international coalition project, as spawned by Israel, is well under way.
From the perspective of the US, a Sunni coalition to war against Iran is ideal. Following the unsuccessful occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is little public support for a war against Iran. Although the invasions did bring financial relief in the form of contracts for American businesses, that could only come with regime change and the case for airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities haven’t even been successfully made. What better than exporting the issue to Saudi Arabia and their regional partners.
The mistake Saudi Arabia made was not remembering that the more people you tell your secret to, the less control you have over it. Eventually it will get out. Pakistan brought the issue of the coalition to its parliament for debate. The parliament initially rejected participation after the Saudi’s insisted that only Sunni Muslim soldiers in the Pakistani army be allowed to participate in the coalition.[19] Muslims across the world no longer need to ask, ‘why should a sectarian litmus test be applied to joining a coalition fighting terror and who exactly is the target of this Shia-excluded coalition?’ Amin Shalaby, executive director for the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs stated, “It is clear that the Islamic Coalition is represented by Sunni countries only; will it not play into the hands of the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites? This is the most dangerous potential development for the region at the moment.”[20] Moreover, not only are the likes of Sudan, Somalia and Djibouti present in the coalition, but countries with a distinct Shi’a presence such as Iraq, Lebanon and Syria excluded – despite Iraq and Syria being at the forefront of fighting Islamic terrorism today.
The Muslim community should be most concerned by the parallel between Ayalon’s plan to use Muslim blood for its own cause and its ominous manifestation by Saudi foreign policy and regional alliances. The interests of the Muslim world surely do not lie in the intelligence services of Tel Aviv, or Washington for that matter, nor seemingly in Riyadh. That Saudi Arabia has aligned with Israel suggests the war on terror may soon take a lurch in an insidious and violent sectarian direction, one which may irreversibly split a billion Muslims. The people of the Middle East are being exploited by their fears and a finely choreographed war is being laid out in front of them. The Muslim world used to consider Israel as its greatest threat, yet today somehow it is its greatest ally. Syria has all but lost its sovereignty with gangs, armies, a dozen countries feeding it arms for self destruction and laying waste to it through airstrikes, all under the sanitised language of ‘coalitions’ and ‘fighting terrorism’. If Saudi Arabia and Israel have their way, Iran will be next.
References
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)