Jewish Voice for Peace and the New Blood Libel

Jewish Voice for Peace needs a new motto, something like “We’re not really anti-Zionist, but we always act that way.” Their latest screed about the Palestinian Nakba reads like a textbook produced by the Palestinian Authority, full of allegations designed to incite hatred and prevent peace. It levels charges of atrocities allegedly committed against Arab civilians by the Jews of 1948 Palestine, who had the temerity to try to defend themselves not only against 5 invading Arab armies, but also against local villages that had long been launching attacks against Jewish civilians and besieging Jewish Jerusalem.

Their “fact sheet” accuses Israel of war crimes, in blood-curdling detail that brings to mind accounts of the horrors of the Holocaust. This of course is not by accident. There are three themes that anti-Zionists use to try to relate the Palestinian narrative to the Holocaust. First, they attempt to present the Arabs as nothing more than peaceful innocent bystanders who became secondary victims of the Holocaust (ignoring the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al Husseini spent the war years in Berlin where he encouraged the Nazis to commit full scale genocide against the Jews, recruited Muslims for the Nazis, and toured Auschwitz with Eichmann, probably to help plan a similar facility should the Germans have overrun Palestine). Secondly, they insist on the false equation of the mass industrial-scale extermination of European Jewry based on a horrific racist ideology, and the dislocation of Palestinian Arabs caused by another war of extermination against the Jews—this one started by their fellow Arabs. Finally, and most outrageously, they claim that current Israeli self-defense actions against the terrorist organizations Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are morally or legally on a plane with Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews.

The descriptions used by JVP are almost all credited to one source: Ilan Pappe’s book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Pappe, for those unfamiliar with him, is a former Israeli lecturer at the University of Haifa who has since relocated to the University of Exeter in the UK. A doctrinaire Marxist who once ran for Knesset with the Communist-led Hadash party, he opposes the existence of Israel as a Jewish state but nonetheless supports "resistance" by Hamas, a radical Islamist movement that seeks to impose sharia law and at least tolerates, if not incites, violence against Christian "infidels" . Most tellingly, he also frankly admits that he is not really interested in facts: “‘We do [historiography] because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth seekers... ‘there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of narratives’.” This philosophy was exposed when one of Pappe’s graduate students, Teddy Katz, was shown to have falsified evidence about an alleged massacre at Tantura in 1948 by claiming that his interview subjects said one thing while the tapes of the interviews proved otherwise.

There are historians such as Benny Morris who have indeed documented incidents of expulsion and even murder of Arabs during Israel’s War of Independence, when the Jews were fighting for their lives and the Arabs were fighting to kill Jews. Israel, no more and no less than other countries, was not born without violence, without wrongs being committed, without people being displaced. All Americans who are not part of the original Native American population live on their land by virtue of military conquest, much of it involving acts worse than anything Israel is accused of by its worst enemies-- and Americans are not returning to a homeland for which we have pined and prayed for centuries. The same holds true for Canadians and Australians. So by what moral right do those who point the finger at Israel and bellow “J’accuse!” continue to reside in their own comfortable homes?

The blood libel is an old staple of anti-Semitism. Jews through the centuries have been slaughtered because of the now-rejected Catholic teaching that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus, then for the myth that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood for matzah. Now we have the new blood libels against Israel. The most prominent has been the al-Dura affair, used as a bloody shirt to create a jihadist frenzy during the Arafat’s terror war—and now that the entirety of the filmed evidence has been aired in a French courtroom, the questions about what might have been a fully staged hoax are larger than ever. Other examples of media gullibility to Arab manipulation abound—the “Jenin massacre” in 2002 during which world media eagerly swallowed Palestinian claims of hundreds of deaths during Operation Defensive Shield, the doctored pictures from Lebanon , blame placed on Israel for the deaths of civilians killed by Hamas mines on a Gaza beach. Of course, while the sensationalist false reporting of these incidents makes headlines, the “corrections” are always buried in small type at the bottom of page 10.


JVP has chosen to perpetuate the tradition of the blood libel, hiding behind anti-Zionism as a politically correct shield. As self-described experts on anti-Semitism, their leadership can’t claim to be ignorant of what they are doing. So one can only conclude that they agree with Pappe: facts aren’t important, advancing the ideology is. And the ideology, sadly, is not one of peace, but of fanning the flames of anti-Israel hatred.

The J Street Lobby-- How Big Is Their Tent?

The newly formed (and long-planned) J Street Lobby describes itself as "the political arm of the pro-Israel pro-peace movement", and has a distinguished list of scholars, policy experts and political activists on its advisory council, as well as many prominent and respected Israelis who have signed a letter of support. Not surprisingly, most of those Israelis are affiliated with the Labor Party, since the specific positions described in that letter are indistinguishable from the platform on which Labor ran in the last election. I suspect that they will also be extremely close to the Democratic Party's platform this year, with notable exception of the language on settlements--J Street straightforwardly calls them an "obstacle to peace" and calls for more vocal US opposition to them.


I don't have a problem with the specifics of their policy proposals, since they very specifically support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state within secure borders, and their positions regarding settlements and borders certainly reflect current US policy as well. They support the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and specifically do not call for re-division of the city along the 1949 armistice line, but rather call in advance for American endorsement of any agreement arrived at by Israelis and Palestinians regarding the capital city. Their major point is that US diplomatic involvement needs to be vigorous and ongoing, including engagement with Syria and Iran; they don't address the question of how to deal with Hamas or Hezbollah except by reference to Iran.


J Street's founders intend it to be a counterweight to AIPAC, which they see as being too conservative and too uncritical of Israel. However, while they strive to make this distinction, some of the organizations and individuals that have organized this effort are going to find themselves in a precarious position, because their supporters straddle the line between those who support Israel as a Jewish state and those whose definition of "peace" doesn't necessarily require that. A few are worthy of note:

---Marcia Freedman, founder of B'rit Tzedek v'Shalom and Steve Masters, President of BTvS: In the San Francisco Bay Area, BTvS has worked with the anti-Zionist groups Jewish Voice for Peace, Bay Area Women in Black and the International Solidarity Movement. BTvS was even noted in a newsletter from Amienu (another founding organization of J Street) to refuse to consider themselves Zionists and they would not support even singing Hatikvah at a rally to support last year's Annapolis conference. (Exactly how, then, are they "pro-Israel"?)



---Ricken Patel, Co-founder and Executive Director, Avaaz: Avaaz had a petition on its website several months ago which hysterically proclaimed that "The people of Gaza are being squeezed to death. This week's blackouts have finally reached the attention of the world -- and the international community could help end the blockade. Our obligation is clear. This isn't about Israel vs Palestine or Hamas vs Fatah: this is about 1.5 million human beings locked up in the biggest prison on earth.....The humanitarian crisis of sealed-off Gaza is only getting worse, and a rain of missiles is falling. " Sure makes it sound like a rain of missiles was falling ON Gaza, rather than originating FROM Gaza. Not a mention of the genocidal jihadist ideology of Hamas, not a word about Hamas firing on the crossing points with Israel to prevent the flow of humanitarian supplies. (Good thing that Patel supports Israel; I'd hate to see what opposition would look like).

---Peter Edelman, Board Chair, Larry Garber, Chief Executive Officer, and Norman Rosenberg, Former Chief Executive Officer, New Israel Fund: The New Israel Fund has come under criticism for its funding of Adalah, an Arab rights organization that has called for Israel to allow an unlimited Arab "right of return" that would end Israel's existence as a Jewish state and turn it into yet another Arab country.



J Street also links to many organizations and websites, all of whom state that they are promoting "peace". Many of them are indeed promoting peace while supporting Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Some of them claim to, but suffer from the same problem of finding it too easy to ally with organizations that don't share their support of Israel. For example, the Churches for Middle East Peace include the Protestant churches that have been calling for a one-sided divestment from Israel, and one member organization, the United Methodist Church, recently developed a study guide on the Middle East that claims that Israel's founding constitutes "original sin", the suggestion that Israel's "hysteria" and "paranoiac sense of isolation" have prevented it from making peace, and the assertion that Israel's "denial of the word Palestinian reveals a racism that considers Arabs less than human." (there certainly is voluminous evidence of racism and dehumanization of the other side in the Middle East media-- on the Palestinian side). There's even a link to Richard Silverstein's blog--Silverstein is known for his ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to question his views, and his site links prominently to Jewish Voice for Peace and promotes Jimmy Carter's "Peace Not Apartheid" book as well as Walt and Mearshimer's "Israel Lobby".

No doubt I will be accused of defaming either J Street as a whole or many of the active, dedicated members of the Zionist community who have signed on to it. In no way do I suggest that the positions of Richard Silverstein or the United Methodist Church are supported by the majority of those whose names appear on the J Street website. But the fact that those extreme positions are represented raises concerns about the future direction of this group.

J Street thinks that the conflict will be between the principles that they support and those of AIPAC and other prominent American pro-Israel groups. They want to draw a distinction between their policies and those of AIPAC, yet many supporters of Israel won't see the two groups as mutually exclusive. It is hard to imagine political candidates that J Street will support who won't also be described by AIPAC as having a "pro-Israel" position. Obviously, not all AIPAC endorsed candidates will be seen as favorable by J Street since AIPAC also endorses candidates that won't meet J Street's more restrictive criteria. J Street clearly envisions itself as being able to provide political cover for elected officials who wish to be more publicly critical of Israel without being tarred as "anti-Semitic", although AIPAC and other prominent American pro-Israel organizations do not equate opposition to specific policies of an Israeli government with anti-Semitism. On occasion, one sided criticism that demonizes, that applies double standards only to Israel, or that delegitimizes Israel has been appropriately labeled as having anti-Semitic content (cf. Carter, Jimmy).

I think their bigger problem will be their own internal conflict. Those groups and individuals that truly do support Israel as a Jewish state will face opposition from within over being seen as too supportive, especially at times of crisis; after all, during the Second Lebanon War there was widespread support across the Zionist political spectrum in Israel for military action against Hezbollah (though there was a lot of disagreement on what form that action should have taken). At the same time, in this country, Jewish Voice for Peace stood prominently with radical anti-Israel and pro-terror groups-- and while they are not part of J Street, they do have sympathetic allies there. I expect that we will see ongoing friction between those who are true supporters of Jewish self-determination in the land of Israel and those for whom even the singing of Hatikvah is problematic.

L’Shanah Habah B'Goshen!

How would the Jewish Voice for Peace think about Pesach?.

Dear Pharaoh;

We’re sorry that we left. We’ll be back soon. We’ve come to understand that there’s a difference in being a Hebrew and having an Exodus, and that we can still be good Hebrews without supporting an Exodus. An Exodus which causes hardship to another, equally as deserving people, the Egyptians, by unlawfully depriving them of their slave labor force, which is vital to their nationhood and national identity. Through the clarity of moral relativism we have come to accept and understand the property rights of the Egyptians’ in our continued servitude is equally as precious to them as our feelings about our role as Hebrews.

We’ll be right back to our places in Goshen so we can resume building the stone cities of Pithom and Ramses. If you could see, the first group of us is beginning to walk backwards into the Red Sea at this very moment as part of the “Phased Plan of Return” to slavery and bondage.

Yours truly,
L’Shanah Habah B”Goshen!

The Children of Israel

It's NOT The Occupation, Stupid

Those who follow the adventures and misstatements of anti-Israel prattlers such as Norman Finkelstein, Jewish Voice for Peace and Bay Area Women in Black are familiar with their argument that the Palestinian failure to develop any type of actual civil society (as opposed to the kleptocracy and the rule of armed gangs that began as soon as the Palestinians fell under the dominion of Yassir Arafat, or the neo-Taliban emerging in Gaza) is all because of the occupation, and not any fault of the Palestinians, and certainly not that of their fellow Arabs (who, one assumes, were gently nurturing the development of political institutions in the West Bank and Gaza during the 19 years of illegal occupation by Jordan and Egypt, respectively). Therefore, of course, there can't be any realistic requirement on the part of Palestinian "leaders" to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure, or end incitement, or to do ANYTHING to help bring about peace. All the demands are directed at Israel.

There's an excellent op-ed by Shlomo Avineri in the July 28 Ha'aretz that reminds readers of a very simple fact:

"The current Palestinian excuse is that it is difficult to establish coherent political institutions in conditions of territorial fragmentation, refugees and Israeli occupation. All this is true, but irrelevant. Every national movement emerges in difficult conditions, which usually have to do with being under foreign rule. It is hard to imagine more difficult conditions than those that faced the Jewish Yishuv in Palestine in the 1930s and '40s, with the rise of the Nazis, abandonment on the part of Britain, the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust."

Of course, no other national movement (at least in modern times) has made it an essential part of its program the elimination of another country, the national movement of a different people. The Irish didn't require the dismantlement of England, the Eritreans didn't insist on the destruction of Ethiopia, and so on. But for too many Palestinians, the goal of destroying Israel has taken precedence over creating a Palestinian state.

Fortunately, even in the Arab media there are more voices being raised questioning the repeated refusal of the Palestinians to assume any responsibility for their own futures. Maybe once they realize that even their fellow Arabs are disgusted with their failure as a society, the Palestinians will be able to recognize that they will have to give up their dream of Israel's destruction before they can create a future for their own people. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Farfur the Martyr Mouse and Nahool the Jihad Bee are too interested in teaching the next generation of Palestinian children about civic values.

Liberal Zionism and Radical Islam

Rabbi David Forman, the founder of Rabbis for Human Rights, has written a thoughtful commentary in the Jerusalem Post which reveals the extent to which radical Islam has forced the Zionist left to reconsider its entire worldview. Of course, we have all seen how the jihadists promote their hate virtually without condemnation from the left in the US and in Europe (except when there is an ACTUAL terror incident; incitement to terror doesn't seem to worry them). Obviously, the Zionist left has a somewhat different agenda than their counterparts elsewhere. But as Rabbi Forman shows, even their idealism and pursuit of justice has now run headlong into the complete refusal of radical Islamists to accept the existence of Jews (and not just in Israel, but ANYWHERE). Given that circumstance, he notes ".... we must carefully weigh the possible consequences of our rhetoric and activities......Painful memories of our history, presently reflected in the mirror of a dangerous new reality, compel us to examine and reexamine, evaluate and reevaluate our deeply held principles - even as we resolutely cling to our ideals, steadfastly advancing a social agenda that impels Israel to be a 'light unto the nations.'" Many of us reached the same conclusion after the events of September 2000; well, better late than never.

As a liberal American Zionist, I also deal with the dichotomy between my liberalism and my Zionism. I support much of the social agenda promoted by the same Protestant denominations that entertain discussions of boycotting Israel; I abhor the strident opposition to choice and to gay rights from the same evangelical Christians whose financial and moral support of Israel I deeply appreciate (even if I don't agree with their more right-wing positions on the conflict). However, as Rabbi Forman also points out, staying alive is a pretty important priority on the agenda as well. And if anyone who thinks that radical Islam would be satisfied with (merely) the elimination of the Jewish state is the intellectual heir of Neville Chamberlain.

Perhaps Rabbi Forman's piece will help the Zionist leftists in this country realize that they cannot on the one hand work to build a just society within Israel, yet on the other continue to be involved with groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (and, at least in our area, Women in Black) who fundamentally oppose Israel's very existence as a Jewish state. Perhaps Rabbis for Human Rights won't co-sponsor events with JVP and Bay Area Women in Black, as they did earlier this year in Berkeley.

After all, the first basic human right is the right to life. And the forces of radical Islam surrounding Israel refuse to accept even that for the Jews. Indeed, it is well past time for those who do support Israel to heed Forman's words, and to actively challenge those, especially those in the Jewish community, who don't.

"Muzzlewatch" Gets a Muzzle

One of my daily sources of amusement lately has been reading (and posting on) the "Muzzlewatch" blog put up by Jewish Voice for Peace. That blog has the ostensible purpose of "tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy"; they actually did very little of that, because debate is quite open, it's just that their point of view gets very little traction in US public opinion-- see this previous post on this site. They happily promoted all sorts of anti-Israel viewpoints and speakers; any criticism of those was then claimed as attempted "muzzling". Much more interesting than their rather weak postings were the comments; not only was there a good representation of the pro-Israel viewpoint from some good writers whose work I had never previously read (take a bow, Jon), but there was also--no surprise-- the expected chorus from those whose anti-Israel position comes from true, heartfelt anti-Semitism.

JVP tried shutting down comments for a day, claiming it was "not because of the bigotry per se, but the escalation of personal attacks." (I guess "bigotry per se" is OK then?) But of course once the comment boards were opened up then they couldn't get rid of the company they attracted. Yet they do seem surprised at this: "Lately, the site has become a forum for posting anti-Semitic in particular, and also other bigoted and racist comments, as well as ugly personal attacks." Just like they were, in the words of one JVP member who posted there, "appalled" at the anti-Semitism displayed at ANSWER rallies against Israel last summer(see pictures of that event here ). Yet they never publicly dissociated themselves from ANSWER after seeing similar ugliness in previous ANSWER rallies, and they went ahead and paid ANSWER so they could officially participate with a booth at that hate-fest!

So why are they surprised that their forum became a haven for anti-Semites, at least one of whom were known posters on hate sites? Despite their own high-mindedness in claiming to oppose anti-Semitism, their track record of tolerating it in practice from ANSWER and other anti-Israel groups inexorably led to this. They just don't get it-- at its core, anti-Zionism (opposing the right of the Jewish people to have our own country in our own homeland, while supporting the right of every other group, including Palestinian Arabs, to their own state) IS anti-Semitic. And an anti-Israel website will always attract anti-Semites, like flies buzzing around excrement. Of course, JVP's recent conference in Oakland featured T-shirts on sale that proudly stated "Anti-Zionist". If the shirt fits........

The "Muzzle" Watch

One of the current "big lies" circulating across the blogosphere is the alleged "muzzling" of those who differ with Israeli policies. The usual formulation goes something like this: "Those who don't follow AIPAC's. line of unquestioning support of the Israeli government's repressive, racist and apartheid policies are prevented from airing their courageous dissent because of the Jewish lobby, led by Alan Dershowitz. Abe Foxman. , and the American Jewish Congress. American Jewish Congress". Of course, this completely ignores the fact that viewpoints critical of the Israeli government get wide exposure in the US, Europe, and, of course, Israel. We wrote in detail about this in a previous post.

The folks over at Jewish Voice for Peace have now developed this big lie into a sadly repetitive formula:

1. Find those who oppose Israel’s very existence; bonus points if they are Jewish (let’s call them the anti-Zionists, since they wear that label with misbegotten pride). Ignore the fact that these individuals get to appear on TV and radio frequently, speak on college campuses, publish books, etc.
2. Find statements from members of Jewish community organizations opposing the anti-Zionists– not on the grounds that they criticize Israeli policy, but because they oppose Israel’s existence at all.
3. Claim that these anti-Zionists are just “critics of Israeli policy”, ignoring their own self-admitted prejudices which make EVERY Israeli policy or self-defense action something to criticize. Continue to ignore the fact that these individuals get lots of access to an unquestioning media.
4. Ergo, Jewish community leadership is attacking "all critics of Israeli policy” (funny how a few extremists become “all”) and preventing them from spreading their views; now you’ve discovered more evidence of a vast “muzzling” conspiracy!

Never mind that there are no lawsuits, no websites being shut down, no anti-Israel speakers prevented from speaking by rioters.

Interestingly enough, a few ACTUAL episodes of attempted misuse of the legal system to muzzle free speech have come to light; unlike individuals who might simply register an objection to an inappropriate speaker or an unbalanced program, these are actual attempts to shut down free speech. In homage to the new baseball season, let's throw 3 strikes at freedom of speech:

For strike one, we have CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), which has demanded the names of the passengers who reported the suspicious activity at Minneapolis Airport on November 21, 2006 so they can be included in their religious discrimination lawsuit http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070313-110514-4800r.htm (note that in response to this, Congressman Steve Pearce, R-NM, introduced in Congress the "Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007, H.R. 1640." This bill would protect Americans from being sued for reporting suspicious activities to law enforcement and security personnel). Apparently, CAIR feels that free speech shouldn't include the right to report suspicious activity to law enforcement officials. (anyone feeling their rights "muzzled" yet?)

Strike two: the Arizona Republic's online edition reprints the story of a film for the PBS. series Crossroads that was the subject of tampering by PBS station WETA: "WETA appointed an advisory board that includes Aminah Beverly McCloud, director of World Islamic Studies at DePaul University.....in a January e-mail, McCloud told Crossroads producers that she had spoken with Nation of Islam representatives and 'invited them over to view this section.' She also wrote that they were outraged 'and will promptly pursue litigation.'" Read the full
story at http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0410crossroads0410.html. (foul ball, strike two)

Now we get the curveball for strike three: there IS a "Jewish" organization that is involved in a lawsuit to "muzzle" free speech. This lawsuit is aimed at both the news media and advocacy organizations on an issue involving the Islamic community. Which group would line up against free speech and freedom of the press, to try to stifle reporting on an issue? Why, it's none other than those brave defenders of free speech : Jewish Voice for Peace! JVP has filed an amicus curae brief on behalf of the Islamic Society of Boston in its lawsuit against Boston area media and a local Israel advocacy group, the David Project. The issues are well described by the American Jewish Committee in its March 15 press release .

Despite multiple posts on JVP's "muzzlewatch" site challenging them on their participation in this legal maneuver to stifle speech with which they disagree, they have even failed to deliver a promised article outlining their rationale for becoming involved in this sordid effort. Muzzlewatch asks for readers to send in tips about the "stifling of open debate" to tips@muzzlewatch.com. Perhaps it's worth tipping them off about the hypocrisy staring them right in the mirror.

You Have The Right To Shut Up

"There's a controversy that has bubbled up in the Jewish world today around this question: Is it good for Israel when Jews go public with harsh criticism of Israel? One recent example is a Jewish group that has been presenting on college campuses a stinging, single-minded and, in the eyes of many, exaggerated critique of the Israeli army. Presumably, this type of collective soul-searching demonstrates the Jewish values of fairness and good faith and ought to generate some goodwill in return. "

Or so the folks over at Jewish Voice for Peace seem to think.

Read the rest of David Suissa's piece on the StandWithUs website and see why this isn't really such a good idea when facing those to whom the only good Israeli is a dead Israeli.

You Can't Claim the Moral High Ground When You're Standing in the Sewer

The "muzzlewatch" blog, run by Jewish Voice for Peace, continues its claim that Jewish anti-Israel voices can't be heard-- ironically, by citing the cascade of various media stories and Op-Eds by and about Jewish anti-Zionists. They apparently seek some validation from a Feb 23rd opinion piece in the Forward by Dan Fleshler. However, in their craving for endorsement of their anti-Israel position, they obviously failed to read Fleshler's article, in which he states

"From conversations with people engaged in these efforts, it becomes clear that Jews who agree with many of the left’s objections to Israeli policies can have more of an impact than those who don’t.
The ideal candidates for addressing the claims of the far left aren’t afraid to say publicly that the occupation is morally repugnant. They want to be able to talk about Israel in the public arena with the same candor that can be found in the Israeli media. They want the American government to have the political wiggle room to occasionally push and prod both sides of the conflict, if that is what is necessary to preserve hope for a two-state solution.
At the same time, they proudly say they are pro-Israel. They want to change the atmosphere on campuses and on the Internet, where so-called “progressives” often see nothing wrong with comparing Israeli Jews to Nazis, praising suicide bombers as freedom fighters or proclaiming that the very idea of the Jewish people is an illusion — what is known in leftist parlance as “Jewish particularism.” And these moderate leftists insist that Palestinians and other Arabs not be absolved of responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict."
JVP and its supporters are the PROBLEM that's being addressed, not the solution. Those who stand with keffiyeh-shrouded Hamas supporters at anti-Israel demonstrations, those who co-sponsor events with the likes of ISM and MECA, those who refuse to even endorse the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state-- these are the people that Fleshler decribes as the "so-called progressives" who have allowed the atmosphere on campus, in the media, and on the Internet to be poisoned against the very concept of a Jewish state. If JVP wants to claim the moral high ground, it first needs to extricate itself from the sewage.

Who's actually being "muzzled" here?

Our friend Ami Isseroff also examines the hypocrisy of those constantly claiming that their voices are being suppressed:

Shla-muzzlewatch: The open society and its enemies
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000356.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center
http://zionism-israel.com

It is increasingly difficult to criticize critics of Israel, and even more difficult to find any article about the subject that does not begin by decrying the Jewish conspiracy that is preventing free speech about Israel. Mearsheimer and Walt started the vogue by insisting that the "Israel Lobby" stifles all criticism. Jimmy Carter went around the US peddling his book and claiming over and over that the "Israel lobby" would not let him speak. His claims were reported incessantly in all major media. An organization called Muzzlewatch reports on any attempt to get a fair break for Israel, to correct factual errors in reporting, or to insist that not every Israeli has horns and a tail, as "Muzzling."Of course, those who insist on "freedom of expression," want freedom only to express their views. They were quite proud when they managed to prevent Daniel Pipes from speaking at U.C. Irvine, and even prouder when they managed to prevent Benjamin Nethanyahu from speaking at Berkley. Only one type of opinion must be allowed.

An article in Arab News speaks frankly about the problem (see http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=92722&d=25&m=2&y=2007). We should point out that Arab News is the enlightened showcase English language organ of the moderate, and enlightened Saudi government, and that the author, Mr. Batarfi, considers himself a moderate as well. Mr. Batarfi has found a serious problem in the United States. The United State press is not free he maintains. Even though there are many journals and media outlets, the Jews control the media and do not allow any criticism of Israel. Batarfi managed to find, or invent, several US journalists like this one:An American TV producer interviewed by an Arab radio was asked to explain the overwhelming support for Israel in the US Congress. He said: You need millions of dollars to run for Congress, and the Israeli lobby will make or break you depending on your loyalty, not to your country but to theirs. If you beat your competitor in pledging your undying loyalty to the Holy Cow, Israel, you win their steadfast support. Later, they watch you like a hawk and judge you on your voting record. One mistake and you are down with a scandal or in the next election. Therefore, the American explained, most elected politicians and lawmakers are in the lobby's pocket. The interview was translated by an Israeli Arab-media watch group, an article was written about it in a pro-Israel paper, and the torture campaign began! In a few weeks the pressure was too much for his employers to bear and he had to resign.He regales us with several more such incidents, all related anonymously.

I am wondering out loud, what would happen if a US newspaper printed a cartoon of Mohamed with a crooked nose or the wrong type of beard. Mr. Batarfi forgot what happened when such cartoons were printed in Europe. When Muslims rioted, burned buildings and killed people, Mr. Batarfi and Muzzlewatch were not there to complain.Mr Batarfi cannot explain how it is that nonetheless, Professor Mearsheimer and Walt's study received wide, and usually favorable, coverage in US Media. Mr. Carter and his anti-Israel book were likewise well received, and his book is selling well, and will be a source of disinformation for many tens of thousands of people. During operation Defensive Shield in 2002, the Los Angeles Times published an Op Ed comparing the IDF unfavorably with the Waffen SS in the Warsaw Ghetto. During the recent Lebanon war, a Washington post Op Ed maintained that Israel is a mistake of history. More recently, the New York Times published an article equating anti-Zionism and support for Holocaust denial with "liberalism." Apparently these critiques are far too mild for Mr. Batarfi's taste. It seems that unless someone actually advocates a second Holocaust, they aren't serious critics of "Israel" in Batarfi's view.

In Saudi Arabia, they do not have such problems of course. Saudi Media are therefore free to publish drivel like Mr. Batarfi's article, as well as supposed Jewish recipes for baking Purim cakes from the blood of Christian children, false and libelous articles about the Talmud, fictitious articles on the nonexistent Jenin massacre of 2002, and other disinformation that would not meet with approval in the USA because of the "Israel Lobby." Such "freedom" has not been enjoyed in any Western country since the allied armies put the Nazis out of business.The reason that Saudi Arabia enjoys such freedom of the press is simple: Saudi Arabia is Judenrein - no Jews can live there. Mr. Carter, Muzzlewatch and Jewish Voice for Peace are in good company with Mr. Batarfi.Remember, not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism is always anti-Semitism.Ami Isseroff

Original content is Copyright by the author 2007. Posted at ZioNation-Zionism and Israel Web Log, http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000356.html where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Disributed by ZNN list. Subscribe by sending a message to ZNN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by e-mail with this notice, cite this article and link to it. Other uses by permission only.