Americans may still be stuck in the dream world provided by the Obama illusion machine (although they are starting to wake up in record numbers), but Israelis are taking to the streets protesting the American imposed freeze on buildings in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. These are some of the photos from the Dec. 9th, demonstration in Jerusalem, organized by the Yesha Council and attended by tens of thousands of Israelis:
With the credibility of the story in tatters one might have expected the outrageous accusations to have a limited shelf life or to disappear altogether. However, the Swedish blood libel is a textbook case study of how what starts as an article published in a language read by few from a country of limited international influence can turn into a poison that spreads much wider. Perhaps no one can prevent the spread of such poison through the Internet and beyond. But it is still incumbent upon us to act as a bulwark and to ensure that the truth and an antidote to the poison appears online to counter the lies. A look at one example of this may be an indicator of the long-term consequences of the Swedish blood libel. In a November 2008 story on the confirmation of uranium traces at a Syrian site bombed by Israel in September 2007, the discussion on CNN's message board invariably turned to accusations that Israel was responsible for the uranium. One commenter posts from an article by Robert Fisk in The Independent from October 2006 that claimed that Israel had used uranium bombs during the 2006 Lebanon conflict. He then asks: "Israel used it [uranium] in Lebanon why should any one be surprised that Israel used it in Syria too." However, the original story by Fisk was thoroughly debunked after a United Nations agency found the uranium charges to be false. The Independent refused to issue a correction or apology and so this libel is regurgitated on forums such as CNN's. The latest Swedish blood libel could be a similar story. Several Ukrainian Web sites claim Israel has brought around some 25,000 Ukrainian children into the country over the past two years in order to harvest their organs. Vyacheslav Gudin told the estimated 300 attendees of the Kiev conference a detailed story about a Ukrainian man's fruitless search for 15 children who had been adopted in Israel. The children, Gudin said, had clearly been taken by Israeli medical centers, where they were used for "spare parts." Gudin said it was essential that all Ukrainians be made aware of the genocide Israel was perpetrating. In response to a request by the country's Jewish community Ukraine's police force is investigating ZUBR, one of the Web sites that reported the speeches. The story spread into Canada via Al Ameen Post, a Canadian Muslim newspaper, which published an article repeating the libel that Jews kidnapped "25,000 Ukrainian children (...) over the past 2 years in order to harvest their organs". The Palestinian Authority libel that Israel deliberately harvests organs from dead Palestinians has caught on in the Arab world. Last month Egyptian authorities temporarily denied Israeli doctors entry into Egypt to participate in a medical conference. The head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate explained that this was because they "participated in torture" of Palestinians and because they "are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners." In response to the Israeli doctors' protest over Egyptian authorities not issuing them permits to enter Egypt for a medical conference, the head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate, Dr. Hamdi Al-Sayed said: 'We have no regard or respect for the Israeli doctors because the medical community has condemned them due to their participation in the torture of Palestinian prisoners.' He added: 'The Israeli Medical Association has acknowledged having participated in torture, noting that it had done so with the aim of protecting Israeli citizens.' He stated that the Israeli doctors are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners, and that 'such people will not be permitted to take part in our medical activities." [Al-Ayyam, Nov. 27, 2009] Saddly, in the 21st Century, the Antisemitism is alive and well.
The Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet's August 2009 story accusing the IDF of harvesting Palestinian organs is the latest in the long and dark history of European Antisemitism. Donald Bostrom, the author of the offensive piece, duly demonstrated his utter lack of any basic journalistic standards when he said: "But whether it's true or not - I have no idea, I have no clue." On top of this, the story was further undermined as one of the Palestinian families interviewed said they never told any reporter that their son was missing organs. 
Such falsehoods take on a life of their own on Internet message boards. Some media outlets save their comments for perpetuity. For the miss informed, a comment or post on a message board may even become a valid source through a search engine such as Google or Yahoo.
As Obama wraps up yet another futile foreign trip, he finds another leader to bow to, this time to the Emperor of Japan.
After his bowing to the Saudi despot, apologizing for America's "arrogance" and declaring that Americans are just " a bunch of citizens", Obama is the first President in the history of this nation that does not believe in the uniquness of the American experience.
No wonder that back home, Obama's approval ratings hit a new low: 46 percent, according to a FOX News poll released Thursday. An equal number -- 46 percent -- disapprove of the job he's doing. By comparison, more than twice as many Americans disapprove (63 percent) as approve (26 percent) of the job that the Democrat-controlled Congress is doing, but it is of little comfort to Obama.
In the mean time, Sarah Palin's approval ratings continue to rise. Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader -- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll.
While Obama may not be in a hurry to read Palin's new book, among the critical segment of independent voters, they are virtually even (Obama at 50 percent; Palin at 49 percent).
Thank you, Mr. President.
I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.
Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.
Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.
Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.
The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.
The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.
Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.
More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.
Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.
And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Tough question. Norman Podhoretz tries to answer this question in an article recently published in the "Wall Street Journal".
Like many other Jewish intellectuals (Bernie Goldberg, Michael Medved), Podhoretz moved from left to right more than four decades ago. Like many other Jews (your humbled blogger, included), he's been hoping for many years that our fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.
Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for a Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75% (far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group). In 2008, 78% of the Jewish vote when to Obama. Except for blacks, who gave him 95% of their vote, Obama scored better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. What makes this even more unbelievable is that despite McCain's long history of sympathy towards Israel and Obama's atrocious associations with outright haters and anti-Semites like Rev. Wright and Rashid Khalidi, Obama beat McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points!
Today, the Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. While other ethno-religious groups have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party, Jews still remain heavily committed to the liberal agenda. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, increased government spending, expanded benefits to the lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.
In the conflict between Judaism and "Jewish values", on one side and liberalism on the other, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right.
Many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.
In Podhoretz's view, when they look at America, liberals see injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.
As such, the Jewish experience in this country bears testimony to the precious virtues of the traditional American system. Surely, then, Jews ought to be joining with conservatives against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the moral values and the socioeconomic institutions of the traditional American system.
Obama ran on the premise that the American system is seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, we hoped that our fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism of the past. It didn't happen.
The encouraging signs that more and more Jews are showing signs of "buyer's remorse", is perhaps one of the reasons Podhoretz hopes that the exposure of Obama as a "false messiah" will open the eyes of fellow Jews to the falsity of the political creed to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has denied calling White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior Obama advisor David Axelrod “self-hating Jews."
Whether or not the Prime Minister used the term, increasing criticism by American Jews of Obama signals a split in the American Jewish community.
The trigger for the growing crisis between Israel and the U.S., and among American Jews, is the issue of “settlements” (which Obama labeled as “illegitimate” in his speech in Cairo nearly two months ago) in which he included Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem.
Obama revealed that Rahm Emanuel, whose father was an Israeli and part of the underground resistance movement under the British Mandate, tells him everything he needs to know about Israel.
Emanuel has pushed Obama into a head-on collision with the Netanyahu government out of a strategy to demonstrate that the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) no longer speaks for American Jewry.
Obama's game is to try and defeat the Israel lobby from within, since he could not defeat the lobby from outside it.
But that strategy has backfired, turning into a wall of opposition, both in Israel, where Obama’s popularity rating is near-zero, in the U.S. where Emanuel has simply ignored opposing views of major Jewish organizations, and even in the liberal anti-Israeli American press.
The liberal "Washington Post" has criticized Obama on his policy towards Israel, and an editorial on Thursday went even further. Under the title “Tough on Israel - Why: President Obama's battle against Jewish settlements could prove self-defeating,” the newspaper’s editors wrote:
“One of the more striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank.”
The newspaper criticized Obama for his “absolutist demand” for a freeze on all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem and observed that Palestinian and Arab leaders hardened their positions, while the Israeli public opinion has rallied behind Netanyahu (quite the opposite result that Obama and Emanuel had hoped for).
The turning point against Obama may have been the meeting in the White House earlier this month with American Jewish leaders. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations requested a discussion with Obama, but Emanuel decided who would attend.
He used the opportunity to attempt to create an impression of solid support for Obama and show off the relative new "J Street" lobby. Unlike AIPAC, it is active politically and endorsed and campaigned for Congressional candidates who fit their agenda, which includes Israel’s surrendering all of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem that were restored to the Jewish State in the 1967 Six-Day War.
At the same time, he excluded National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), both of which support a Jewish presence in all of Israel.
The latest confrontation on a new project for Jews in eastern Jerusalem prompted Alan Solow, chairman of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to state this week, "Hundreds of Arab families have moved into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the same right should be accorded to Jewish residents to live wherever they choose in Jerusalem. No government of Israel has or can pursue a discriminatory policy that would prevent the legitimate presence of Jews in any area of the capital."
In response, five leftist groups, including Americans for Peace Now and J Street, criticized supporters of Jews’ rights to build in the area.
While Emanuel is trying to strengthen his position, he faces another challenge on the Obama administration’s health plan. Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel is Obama’s “health czar,” and the plan is being widely panned in American media, leaving the White House Chief of Staff with two potential failures in the making.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a sharp response Sunday to Obama's pressure to stop Jews from building in parts of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem is “not up for debate,” Netanyahu said, and Jews are permitted to build in any part of the capital city, as are Arabs.
Netanyahu implied that the U.S. request was racist, saying before the weekly Cabinet meeting, “Imagine what would happen if Jews were forbidden to live or to buy apartments in certain parts of London, New York, Paris or Rome. There would be an international outcry."
"All the more, we cannot to a decree like this regarding Jerusalem,” he said.
Obama's pressure on Israel is growing and the U.S. State Department summoned Israeli envoy Michael Oren and demanded the halt of construction of Jewish homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, near the ancient grave of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon the Just). The property on which the homes are to be built has been owned by Jewish philanthropist Dr. Irving Moskowitz for more than 20 years.
Oren told U.S. officials that Israel would not agree to stop building in the area.
Israel annexed Sheikh Jarrah and other Jerusalem neighborhoods following the Six Day War, in which the city was reunified after 19 years of Jordanian rule in the eastern half of the city. While Israel has maintained sovereignty in the capital city for more than 40 years, the Palestinian Authority continues to demand all areas controlled by Jordan in the 1950s.
Seven Jewish families and an all-day Torah-study program, known as a Kollel, are trying to renew the old Jewish neighborhood of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon The Just).
The area, where Simon the Just and elders of the Sanhedrin were buried over 2,000 years ago, was a thriving Jewish community from 1895 until 1948, when it was evacuated by the British army during the Arab riots preceding the War of Independence.
In the mean time, former PM, Ehud Olmert is joining the debate. "Obama is making a big mistake by insisting that Israel freeze all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wrote Friday in the Washington Post.
In his opinion article, which in effect was an open letter to the president, Olmert reminded the American government that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and that its friendship with the United States is one of the country’s “greatest strategic asserts.”
The former Prime Minister wrote that the Annapolis, Maryland Middle East conference in the Middle East in November, 2007 was based on previous agreements with the Bush administration that Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria would remain part of the State of Israel in any agreement establishing a Palestinian Authority state.
Olmert wrote. "Let me be clear: Without those understandings, the Annapolis process would not have taken on any form. Therefore, the focus on settlement construction now is not useful.”
Olmert noted that a total building freeze is “impossible to completely enforce” and would not help security.
Referring to his own offers for a new PA state, he declared that the U.S. should investigate “why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them. My proposal included a solution to all outstanding issues: territorial compromise, security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees. It would be worth exploring the reasons that the Palestinians rejected my offer and preferred, instead, to drag their feet, avoiding real decisions.”
The "Wimp in Chief", Obama, squirmed and weaseled his words with the Iranian Mullahs and their puppet-tyrant, Ahmadinejad. He did not publicly lend support to all those Iranians taking to the streets, risking life and limb for more liberty, supposedly, not wanting to be seen as “meddling in Iran’s internal affairs”. If there is anyone on this planet that is not familiar with the Iranian regime, we’re talking about a tyrannical theocracy, known throughout the world as beneath -contempt oppressors of every human right under the sun. He did use the words, "appalled" and "outraged" once pictures went round the world of Iranians demonstrators beaten and killed in the streets of Tehran.
This week, the Honduran socialist president, seeking to gut his country's constitution in a shameless power-grab, reminiscent of his friend, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela was rightly deposed by the country’s military.
Obama's response to the Honduran military removing a dictator-wannabe from office (at the behest of the country’s Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress), and escorting him to the border, was sure and fast. He declared the military action an "illegal coup", in tone with the region's socialist gang: the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega.
The OAS has given its full backing to the exiled socialist, especially not now, when has paved the way for Castro's readmission into the organization.
Internally, Obama has the backing of the Communist Party USA which is in full agreement with him and even has some of the same demands of the Honduran people:
•Demands that president Zelaya and other members of his government be returned to power immediately, and that the troops return to their barracks.
•Refusing diplomatic recognition and any military aid to Honduras until President Zelaya is restored to power.
•Calls upon unions and other people's organizations in the United States to actively support “our brothers and sisters in Honduras in resisting this brutal military coup d'etat”.
On this background, it should be reminded of the Iran-Venezuela Axis.
Chavez is a vocal supporter of Iran's nuclear program, which is under United Nations sanctions because of fear among the U.S. and its allies that it may be used to build atomic weapons.
Iran and Venezuela are to sign some 20 agreements in various fields during Chavez's visit to Iran, according to the official news agency IRNA. Chavez's visit to the Islamic republic is the third since Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2005, Iran's local media reported.
Chavez, the socialist, and Ahmadinejad, the Islamo-Fascist, have become quite friendly. Chavez has threatened military action against the Hondurans to restore his pal, Zelaya, to power. Ahmadinejad has called for Israel’s destructions on numerous occasions.
An unholy alliance is being formed by two disparate forces – Islamo-Fascism and Socialism -- united on a tyrannical bent against freedom, against democracy and human rights, against America. Despite their theoretical differences, these regimes share one glaring, common belief: America is responsible for all the suffering and injustice throughout the world. This overriding disgust with America holds together these disparate, radical regimes.
Whose side does Obama take?
Obama's speech in Cairo Thursday called for a sweeping change in Muslim-American relations, based on the establishment of a Palestinian state. He told 3,000 guests at Cairo University that he will put pressure on Israel to cease a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. He did not specifically state whether Jerusalem neighborhoods are part of the “occupation” that he said must end.
Obama opened the speech with the Islamic greeting, “Peace unto you” in Arabic and reminded his listeners of his Muslim background and quoted the Koran several times.
Concerning Israel, he made it clear that he will personally pressure for an end to the "occupation” that he said has caused displacement to the Arab population in Israel for 60 years. His speech specifically defined the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a “Palestinian people,” and he mentioned their “suffering” immediately after referring to the Holocaust. He accused Israel of being responsible for "humiliation” of Arabs and blamed Israel for the lack of opportunity for Arabs under PA rule, despite the local Arab economy having enjoyed unprecedented economic growth following the end of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation in the 1967 Six-Day War.
Concerning Iran, he capitulated by asserting that it can have nuclear power if it abides by international treaties.
Speaking in the police state of Egypt, Obama addressed the issue of democracy, which he said the U.S. cannot impose. He added that the U.S. will work with countries “that recognize the will of the people.”
He then praised Islam as a force of religious tolerance and racial equality (!!!) and stated that “Muslims have enriched the U.S. and have won Nobel prizes,” although in fact less than handful of Muslims have won international Nobel prices.
In Israel, Obama's speech was met with mixed reactions ranging from sharp criticism coming from the right to foolish remarks (such as Ofier Pines' or Zeev Boim's) from the left.
Obama strived to strike a conciliatory tone in his speech to the Muslim world, in a balanced tone. So what is the problem? It is exactly in the "balanced tone". US policy should not be balanced! It should side with those who fight terror, not those who either engage in it or are too weak to prevent it.
Palestinians must be sent the message that they have to put an end to terrorism, violence, and incitement against Israel. US should stand by Israel - a fellow democracy and committed ally - in its efforts to achieve lasting security for its citizens. Israel's good faith efforts have been met by unremitting Palestinian violence and what is in effect an internal Palestinian civil war. Peace and security go hand in hand - Israel has repeatedly reached out her hand in peace only to have it slapped back. Obama's remarks to the world's Muslims today appear to mark the beginning of a worrisome shift in U.S. policy.
The Democratic Party base has changed demographically and with it, the way it views the U.S. relationship with Israel. Democratic voters now have very contrasting views on these matters with those of Republicans, and this gives Obama a potential mandate to change course in U.S. policy.
The latest Zogby Interactive survey conducted from April 1 to April 4, 2009 underlines the increasing difference between the Republican and Democrat views towards Israel. Here are a few of the questions in the survey that found significant differences between self-identified voters for Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain:
U.S. interests and Israel's interests are identical: McCain voters, 78% say YES; Obama voters, 72% say NO.
--Do you believe U.S. support for Israel strengthens or weakens U.S. security? McCain voters: 72% strengthens, Obama voters: 50% weakens.
--If Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank, the U.S. should get tough on Israel McCain voters, 26% YES; Obama voters, 71% YES.
--The US Administration should lean toward Israel: McCain voters, 60%; Obama voters, 9%.
Support for Israel is extremely high among evangelical Christians, who are the bedrock of the Republican base. That, coupled with broad acceptance of neo-conservative foreign policy among Republicans, accounts for the survey results. Support for Israel among Republicans now ranks as one of the party's defining issues, along with anti-abortion and gun rights.
By comparison, more American Jews believe in "talks" and appeasement as strategies that would benefit Israel and most back Obama's liberal policies on the economy, pro-abortion and gay rights.
So who really stands with Israel? Apart from conservative Jews, the evangelical Christians are Israel's most ardent supporters, not the majority of the American Jews. Those are sadly more concerned with their hypocritical Liberal self-image than with the security and well being of Israel (or the US, for that matter).
How will this emerging political reality affect the Obama administration's policies regarding Israel? Obama will emphasize dialogue and appeasement to the detriment of the basic security interests of the State of Israel.
Pursuing that course, Obama will face opposition from Republicans and U.S. supporters of Netanyahu's hard-line policies toward the Palestinians. However, these are not the voters who elected him. Those that did, want a new, less friendlier U.S. policy towards Israel, and they will demand Obama to implement it.
In baseball terms, it's called "taking one for the team". In other words, Obama would like to demand that Israel sacrifices its security to test Iran's willingness to make peace.
Neither Obama nor his minions will put it in those terms but they allude to the "linkage" between the urgent need for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians and Iran's willingness to give up their quest for nuclear weapons.
The "linkage" idea was thrown around by Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and it is a foolish idea, real only in the minds of those who refuse to see three fundamental realities of the Mideast.The first is that Palestinian culture is dominated by a culture of death and bloody "martyrdom", with children programs, music videos and mosque sermons all glorifying death and war against the Jews.
The second reality is that Iran has repeatedly demonstrated that it will not give up its nuclear aspirations voluntarily. Even its so-called "moderate" leaders see the bomb as a ticket to regional dominance and the final victory over Israel. One such "moderate" called Israel "a one bomb country," meaning one would be enough.
The third reality is that there is simply no linkage between the creation of a Palestinian state and Iran's ambition for nukes. To believe otherwise is to believe Iran embarked on the nuclear quest because the Palestinians lacked a state. Nobody in their right mind believes that.
Yet Obama is charging full speed ahead with its vision of a deal, conforming to the liberal Democrats' view that Netanyahu and Israeli conservatives are the problem.
If Israel were to agree to Obama's demand, it likely would get the worst of both worlds: more violence from the Palestinians while Iran merrily moves toward the bomb.
It would be suicidal for Israel to entertain the idea of a nuclear Iran. Even if they assume Iran would not 'nuke' Israel (out of fear that a counterstrike), the Iranian possession of a nuke would wreak havoc do to the morale of its society. The Israelis would be living under threat of a Holocaust every day.
Just because the American people has been fooled into trusting Obama does not mean that the Israelis should make the same mistake.Pope Benedict XVI wrapped up his week-long “Bridge for Peace” Middle East tour leaving behind disappointed Christians and Jews but satisfied Muslims and Palestinian leaders.
Benedict XVI was not in a great hurry to visit Israel and wanted to make his trip contingent on Israel’s agreeing to turn over valuable property to the Vatican.
Israeli Christians were astonished that the pope did not visit Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), which is a center of Christian tradition. This may have been because of security concerns: police revealed Friday morning that they had specific information of attempts to interrupt the papal entourage. The 3,000 faithful who attended an open-air mass in Jerusalem were outnumbered by security forces.
Media Bias
Yad VaShem Holocaust Museum Director Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, former Chief Rabbi of Israel and one of the most widely respected and popular rabbis ever to serve in that position, was openly critical of Benedict XVI. The German-born patriarch’s speech at Yad VaShem was charged with emotion but omitted specific references to Germany or the Nazi movement, of which he was a member in his youth.
The Vatican immediately defended the Pope, saying that he was an involuntary member of a Nazi squad that he left in order to enter the priesthood and the foreign media was quick in replaying this angle over and over.
However, the media, and the pope himself, played down or ignored a tirade by a Muslim cleric in the Pope’s presence, when Sheikh Tayseer al-Tamimi, a senior religious leader in the Palestinian Authority, accused Israel of "murdering women and children and destroying mosques and Palestinian cities."
Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, a popular American journalist and author commented in the Washington Post, “Without debating either the accuracy of his claims or the sincerity with which al-Tami spoke, the Sheikh's behavior points to his lack of desire for peace or even reconciliation. His behavior points only to his desire to enlist the Pope in his own version of events.(...) But more disturbing than the Sheikh's boorish behavior is that this is the man the Palestinian Authority would send to this important meeting. Is this the best that they can do? Is this really the message that they want to send?”
The Pope‘s Pro-Palestinian Speech
The pope rallied behind Palestinian demands for a new Arab state in Judea and Samaria - on the land that Jordan occupied from 1948 to 1967. During that time, Jordan prohibited Christians and Jews from entering holy sites.
He implicitly backed the demand that millions of foreign Arabs be allowed to immigrate to Israel based on their being descendants of approximately 700,000 Arabs who fled the Jewish state while the Arab world fought to annihilate it in 1948.
Pope Benedict also held 'interfaith' talks with Muslims, in a sharp reversal from Vatican statements last year that ruled out theological discussions between Muslims and Christians. He took off his shoes and entered the Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount the morning after Sheikh Tamimi’s harangue.
The pope stated, “One God is the infinite source of justice and mercy.” This was a reference to the Common Word appeal by Muslim scholars for a Christian-Muslim dialogue.
After noticing the echo of the Common Word appeal in Benedict’s address, journalists checked to see whether his Muslim hosts were signatories of the document. It turns out that they weren’t. In fact, the only Palestinian signed is Sheikh Taysir al-Tamimi (!!!), the head of the Islamic courts in the Palestinian territories and the same cleric who railed out against Israel in the Pope's presence.
Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to Barack Hussein Obama, told a large group of AIPAC supporters on Sunday that American efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program depend on progress in Israel’s peace talks with the Palestinian Authority.
MK Yaakov Katz, chairman of the Ichud Leumi (National Union) party, says the veiled threat by Emanuel should be rebuffed and exposed for what it is: “He is basically telling Israel to commit suicide in exchange for American consent to consider dealing with the Iranian threat to the world.”
What Emanuel is saying is that in order for the U.S. to agree to act against the nuclear program that threatens not only Israel, but the entire civilized world, the price is that Israel should agree to a two-state solution that will see Hamas threatening its population centers with its missiles not only from Gaza, but from the very heart of Israel as well, in Judea and Samaria.
“In other words,” Katz is saying, “we have to bring ourselves to the brink of extinction by allowing Hamastan into Judea and Samaria. And this is the idea of a Jew, Rahm Emanuel – a Jew whose father fought in the Etzel (Irgun) against the British for the future of the State of Israel, but whose son, born in America, identifies with the most left-wing opinions, whose significance is the destruction of the State of Israel.”
Unfortunately, Jews like Rahm Emmanuel express the believes of a majority among the US Jewry. Blinded by their far left ideological allegiance, most do not realize the implications of their political actions on the security and the very existence of Israel. An extremist minority subscribe to the credo of the anarchist, universal radical left, which seeks the destruction of the State of Israel.
Katz noted that what is happening in Pakistan right now is proof that Israel cannot even consider “doing business” with its Muslim enemies.
There is a lesson to be learnt from the “Pakistani experiment": the government made many concessions to the Taliban/Al Qaeda, giving them Islamic courts and allowing them control over certain areas, hoping to thus curry favor with them. But the result was that the Taliban is now threatening the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, and the fear is that the terrorists will gain access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The government there finally realized that it has no choice but to fight them.
"We do not want to find ourselves with Tel Aviv and all of Israel’s cities under the same threat," Katz said, "and therefore we cannot entertain the type of solution that Emanuel wishes to force upon us – against the will of the people as democratically expressed in our recent elections.”
The Israel terror victim's association, Almagor, is preparing to petition for a war crimes trial of NATO leaders and nations over the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s. The suit is meant as a counterweight to a Spanish court's investigation targeting Israel.
A Spanish judge decided to proceed with the investigation of Israel over the 2002 assassination of Chief Hamas terrorist Saleh Shehadeh. Sixteen other people were also killed in the IDF airstrike.
Earlier this year, the same court had agreed to hear the case for prosecution of former Israeli Air Force Commander Dan Halutz, former Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, and five other senior Israeli officials for "war crimes" over their decision to assassinate the terrorist leader while he was in a building in Gaza City. Spanish law gives their domestic courts universal jurisdiction for serious crimes, regardless of the location and identity of the alleged victims.
"This case against Israel is based on an ancient hatred of the Jewish people" Almagor Chairman Meir Indor told the press.
In response to the Spanish case, Almagor is currently preparing a petition to the Spanish court system demanding that it investigate NATO countries and leaders for war crimes during the air campaign against Serbia in the late 1990s. Over 2,000 civilians were killed in the attacks. Almagor is specifically looking into a NATO bombing that destroyed a passenger train on a bridge, killing over 100 people, and airstrikes on Serbian hospitals and two Serbian TV stations.
The suit would force the court to look into wartime actions by several former and current Spanish leaders, as well as those of other NATO member states. Chief among the potential targets of the suit is EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who was NATO's Secretary-General during the Serbia bombing campaign and Bill Clinton, the then US President.
The suit is a way to open what Indor called a "Pandora's Box", which is a way to show how ridiculous the Spanish court case is and thus, to close both cases. A similar scenario took place in 2001, when Almagor filed suit against Yasser Arafat after a case was opened against Ariel Sharon in Belgium. The cases were ultimately dropped by the court.
While there is a clear Israeli interest in pursuing the Serbian case in Spain, Indor insisted, "we are a human rights group for all intents and purposes, through which Serbian victims can sue NATO."
The idea of a suit designed to expose Spanish hypocrisy in that government's decision to investigate Israel over the Shehadeh assassination was first floated in February of this year, when Knesset Member Aryeh Eldad called for Israel to put former Spanish officials on trial for their role in the NATO bombings. Eldad petitioned Israel's Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to charge the former Spanish Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Army Chief of Staff in Israeli courts for war crimes against the people of Belgrade and other Serbian areas.
"In those bombings," Eldad's petition said, "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent civilians were killed because NATO pilots dropped their bombs from extremely high altitudes in order not to endanger themselves. They thus caused mass civilian casualties. It is fitting that the State of Israel try the Spanish political and military leaders for war crimes if Spain does not immediately revoke the charges against the Israeli Defense Minister and Chief of Staff."
MK Eldad wrote to the Attorney General that "in the event that Israeli law does not allow charging and trying someone for war crimes not committed within the national jurisdiction, I would appreciate it if you would instruct the State Prosecutor to turn to the International Court in The Hague so that the Spanish leaders will be tried for war crimes by the international court."
Failing to see the hypocrisy in the charges against Israel while NATO carried out worse actions against Serbia, Eldad concluded, "is testimony to hatred for Israel - Israel the people and Israel the state equally - and the State of Israel must fight back against this wave of anti-Semitism."
With much fanfare, Obama has recently celebrated the mark of the First 100 Days in office. For those who just can’t wait to hear what the president’s teleprompter will say next, here’s a recap of the Obama gaffe machine:
Sacrifice good for others: In his inaugural address, Obama calls on Americans to adopt a spirit of sacrifice, which apparently doesn’t include his own "coronation". The $49 million cost of his swearing-in ceremony is triple the cost of Bush’s first inaugural.
Ooops! Obama stumbles badly over the oath of office, inadvertently led astray by Chief Justice John Roberts. A day later, the duo conduct a do-over, safely removed from TV cameras and press photographers.
Honesty? What Honesty?Obama promised a new era of openness and honesty in government, yet New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had withdrawn from consideration for Commerce Secretary because of a federal probe of campaign donations, Treasury secretary nominee Tim Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in back taxes and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (nominated for Health secretary) failed to pay $146,000 in taxes. Nancy Killefer steps down from consideration to become the government’s first chief performance officer, when it is learned her past performance includes failure to pay taxes for her household help. Annette Nazareth, who was nominated for Deputy Treasury Secretary withdraws for undisclosed "personal reasons," following a month-long probe into her taxes and other matters.
No more Lobbyists?. Not so fast! Obama pledges lobbyists won’t work in his White House, then makes 17 exceptions during his first 10 days in office, including Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon.
Who cares about the facts? Obama promises workers at Caterpillar that his stimulus bill will save their jobs. Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens later clarifies. "The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again".
Partisanship you can believe in. The White House manages to politicize the 2010 U.S. Census by announcing it will be directed by the White House under the auspices of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The measure will politicize apportionment of House seats, redistricting, and distribution of federal aid.
Transparency? What transparency? Obama’s promise of a 48-hour review period for all legislation is tossed away during debate over the stimulus bill. The 1,100-page document calling for $787 billion spending did not get a review and has not been read by a single member of Congress.
Selling low. Obama likens the stock markets to political “tracking polls,” suggesting they’re unimportant. When Obama speaks, Wall Street listens — and sells. The market hits a seven-year low as the Dow dips below 7,000.
The check’s in the mail. The Chicago Sun-Times reports Obama still hasn’t paid the $1.74 million bill his campaign owes his hometown for his victory celebration in Grant’s Park.
Who cares about the facts? During his first address to a joint session of Congress Obama states: “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.” Someone should have told this genius that a German invented the automobile...
No class. In their first meeting, British PM Gordon Brown gave Obama a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. Obama’s gift in return: 25 DVDs that don't work in Europe. His gift a month later to Queen Elizabeth: It’s an iPod full of his own speeches!
Teleprompter President. Obama carries an oversized teleprompter into the White House East Room for a news conference. He opens the session reading prepared remarks, and the device is visible in some camera shots. In an address to the National Academy of Sciences, Obama introduced members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Then he introduced them again, thanks to a teleprompter malfunction.
Friendly questions only, please. The media lavishes Obama with praise for holding an innovative town meeting that includes online questions. A few days later, news leaks that only devout Obama supporters were chosen to ask questions from the live audience, however.
Bowing to the Despot. Obama bows low to Saudi King Abdullah. Later, an Obama aide insists: "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah." Note: Abdullah presides over a dictatorship that outlaws Christianity, forbids women the right to vote or drive a car, and executes people in public squares.
Waiting for Castro. Obama eases travel and remittance restrictions on Cuba, and considers dropping the embargo on Cuba. Fidel Castro later expresses his exasperation, saying Obama "misinterpreted" what his brother Raul had said. Cuba would not be willing to negotiate about human rights, Castro insists.
Tea parties? What tea parties? When untold thousands rally nationwide to protest excessive taxation, the White House tries to ignore the whole issue, hoping it will go away. ABC News reports the president “is unaware of the tea parties."
Cornered by Chavez. At the Summit of the Americas, Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez grabs Obama’s hand and presents him with the anti-American book “The Open Veins of Latin America.”
Can you spell Hypocrisy? In celebration of Earth Day, Obama takes two flights on Air Force One and four on Marine One to reach his ultimate destination, Iowa. He burns up more than 9,000 gallons of fuel in the process.
Joe Biden has been keeping a low profile these days. But that's not his style. Last week he popped into the headlines after claiming to have rebuked Bush in private meetings. Recalling a conversation during an interview with CNN, Biden said he told Bush in the Oval Office: "'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'"
Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser in the White House, called the conversational "fictional."
From historical blunders and Internet gaffes to offensive jokes, Vice President Joe Biden constanly proves that there is no lower level than he can stoop to.
Here's a list of 15 "Bidenisms":
-- On March 13, 2009, Biden addressed a former Senate colleague by saying, "An hour late, oh give me a f**king break," after he arrived on Amtrak at Union Station in Washington, D.C. The vice president's expletive was caught on a live microphone.
-- During a Feb. 25, 2009, interview on CBS' "Early Show," Biden encouraged viewers to visit a government-run Web site that tracks stimulus spending. When asked for the site's web address, Biden could not remember the site's "number."
"You know, I'm embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number?" he asked an aide standing out of view.
-- At a Jan. 30, 2009, swearing-in ceremony of senior White House staff, Biden mocked Chief Justice John Roberts for his presidential oath blunder on Inauguration Day:
"Am I doing this again?" Biden said, after Obama asked him to administer the oath. When Biden was told the swearing-in was for senior staff -- and not cabinet members -- the vice president quipped, "My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts," prompting a stern nudge from Obama.
-- On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20 2009, Biden misspoke when he told a cheering crowd of supporters, "Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart." Justice John Paul Stevens -- not Stewart -- swore Biden in as vice president.
-- When criticizing John McCain in Athens, Ohio, on Oct. 15, 2008, Biden said, "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."
-- In a Sept. 22, 2008, CBS interview, Biden misspoke when he said Franklin D. Roosevelt was president when the stock market crashed in 1929.
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened," he said. Herbert Hoover -- not Roosevelt -- was president in 1929, and television had not yet been invented in 1929.
-- During a Sept. 12, 2008, speech in Columbia, Mo., Biden called for Missouri State Sen. Chuck Graham, who is wheelchair-bound, to "stand up."
-- At a Sept. 10, 2008, town hall meeting in Nashua, N.H., Biden said, "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me."
-- Biden mistakenly referred to Alaska governor Sarah Palin as the "lieutenant governor" of her state during a town hall meeting on Sept. 4, 2008 at George Mason University in Manassas, Va.
-- Biden said he was running for president -- not vice president -- during a Sept. 1, 2008, roundtable discussion in Scranton, Pa.
"Today is the moment for me as a United States senator running for president to put aside the national politics and focus on what's happening down there," Biden said.
-- Biden referred to John McCain as "George" during his vice presidential acceptance speech on Aug. 27, 2008, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Co.
-- Biden confused army brigades with battalions when speaking about Obama's plan for sending troops to Afghanistan.
"Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?"
-- During his first campaign rally with Obama as his vice presidential running mate on Aug. 23, 2008, Biden introduced Obama by saying, "A man I'm proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next President of the United States -- Barack America!"
-- On Jan. 31, 2007 -- the day Biden announced his presidential bid -- the Delaware Senator was roundly criticized for calling Obama "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
-- On June 1982, at the height of the Lebanon War ("Peace for Galilee" operation), Menachem Begin, the then Israeli PM, had a tough confrontation with Joe Biden. Biden had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel. When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin replied to him: ‘This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don’t threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us.’”
Barack Hussein Obama was caught on camera by journalists on Wednesday bowing in deference to Saudi King Abdullah as he greeted him at the opening of the G20 meeting in London, prior to being photographed with British royalty.
Obama later expressed support for the 2002 Saudi Plan in his meeting Thursday with the Saudi monarch. The two also discussed global economic issues and terrorism, White House staff said.
The meeting between Obama and Abdullah was the first face-to-face talk between the two. The meeting created a storm of debate, when pictures and a video were released that appeared to show Obama bowing to the Saudi monarch at the G20 photo-op.
The video clip shows Obama greeting the Saudi monarch and executing a bow before him.
Obama reportedly expressed support for the 2002 Saudi Initiative and had been quoted as saying of the plan, “The Israelis would be crazy not to support this initiative.”
In January of 2009, Saudi officials warned that the U.S. would need to “drastically revise” its Middle East policy, particularly towards Israel, if it wanted to maintain influence in the region.
The Saudis referred to the Middle East policy of former U.S. President George Bush as “sickening,” and accused America of “contributing to the slaughter of innocents” by supporting Israel.
Bush expressed strong support for the 2003 Road Map initiative over the Saudi Plan. The Road Map plan calls for the Israel-PA negotiations process to take place in stages, with Israel dismantling Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria only after the PA begins to fight terrorism.
The Saudi Plan calls on Israel to cede Gaza and all land east of the 1949 armistice line, including much of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, to the Palestinian Authority. Israel would also be required to cede the strategic Golan Heights region to Syria.
In addition, the plan requires Israel to release all terrorists currently in its prisons, and to offer citizenship to millions of foreign Arabs who say they are descended from Arabs who fled pre-state Israel during the War of Independence.
In exchange for these suicidal measures, Arab states would "normalize" their ties with the Jewish State.
In Israel, the plan has met with little support. Enacting the plan would force roughly 600,000 Israelis from their homes. In addition, senior defense officials have warned that the plan would compromise Israel's security.
Plagued by a faltering economy, a reluctant Europe, increasing resistance at home to his pseudo-socialist agenda and a growing realizations by more and more Americans that electing Obama to the White House was a huge mistake, Hussein is trying to gain momentum by forcing a peace deal in the Middle East and pressuring Israel into suicidal concessions.
If Obama chooses to bow to the Saudi King, he should not be allow to pressure Israel into doing the same.
Browsing the Israeli press one can get a more informed picture of events in Israel than the slanted international media coverage. As the expression of a vibrant democracy, Israel's press is hardly monolithic, presenting a variety of competing political views. Behind it, however, is hiding a virulent stream of political activism, with a penchant for self-criticism, so much so that many of the most negative stories appearing in the international press are first broken by the Israeli newspapers.
Unfortunately, like their Western counterparts, some Israeli media is pushing a far-left political agenda, while masquerading as legitimate journalists.
Such is the case of a recent Ha'aretz story alleging "war crimes" and serious ethical failures on the part of the IDF in Gaza. It wasn’t long before many international media outlets, such as the New York Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Australian, and Globe & Mail to name but a few, repeated the allegations, presenting them as facts, without bothering to do any rudimentary checks.
The viciously anti-Israel newspaper, The Guardian published its own claims of evidence of alleged Israeli "war crimes". Online videos and accompanying articles accused Israeli forces of using human shields, deliberately firing on Palestinian medical staff and indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians with unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as claims that Israel had used a variety of weapons in "illegal ways."
Both Ha'aretz and The Guardian are guilty of shoddy journalism and intellectual dishonesty. When subjected to honest inquiries, their slanderous articles appear more like modern-day Blood Libels than “reporting facts”. Melanie Phillips, writing for The Spectator, examines the Ha'aretz report in her article – The Ha’Aretz Blood Libel:
There are precisely two charges of gratuitous killing of Palestinian civilians under allegedly explicit orders to do so. One is what even Ha'aretz made clear was an accidental killing, when two women misunderstood the evacuation route the Israeli soldiers had given them and walked into a sniper's gun sights as a result. Moreover, the soldier who said this has subsequently admitted he didn’t see this incident - he wasn’t even in Gaza at the time - and had merely reported rumor and hearsay.
The second charge is based on a supposedly real incident in which, when an elderly woman came close to an IDF unit, an officer ordered that they shoot her because she was approaching the line and might have been a suicide bomber. The soldier relating this story did not say whether or not the woman in this story actually was shot. Indeed, since he says 'from the description of what happened' it would appear this was merely hearsay once again.
Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Herb Keinon points out:
It is important to note that none of the testimony was about what the soldiers did themselves, but rather of what they heard or saw other soldiers do. It is also important that what was reported seems to fall within the realm of aberrations by individuals during war against a cruel enemy hiding behind civilians, not a systematic loss by the army of its moral compass.
Numerous testimonies from IDF soldiers debunking those allegations were published by YNet, other Israeli newspapers and even personal blogs of soldiers themselves. Yet these were ignored by the agenda-driven reporting of both Ha'aretz and The Guardian.
THE GUARDIAN: JUDGE AND JUROR
• The allegations are presented as facts even though they are unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
• The proven unreliability of Palestinian "eyewitnesses".
• The lack of any verifiable information or any mention of the measures taken by the IDF to avoid civilian casualties while Hamas actively used human shields.
As further evidence that The Guardian chose activism over journalism, the newspaper called blog and Web site owners to support its “work” and asked them to link to their "Gaza War Crimes" page. The appeal was sent by Mustafa Khalili, who is one of those credited by The Guardian for the Gaza content.
The Guardian is carrying out a blatant and systematic campaign of demonization against Israel that goes well beyond journalistic norms. Like a good example of the new Liberal Fascism, so pervasive with today’s “new left”, the paper has been selective (to put it mildly) in its willingness to publish responses from supporters of Israel criticizing its extreme lack of balance and proportion.
However, The Guardian's behavior cannot be allowed to go unanswered. Hiding behind the bumper sticker of “to be anti-Israel is not Anti-Semitism”, the far left in Europe and elsewhere is actually guilty of anti-Semitism.
The belief that it's only permissible for the Jews to have a state and an army if that state and its army comply with standards of behavior far higher than that required of other states, including their own is anti-Semitic. Any failure to live up to these standards tends to be taken as evidence of the basic illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise. Following this logic, Israel’s right to exist is thus questioned.
The media circus surrounding the cases above are yet another example of the lengths to which the international media and Israel's detractors will go to in order to promote the false image of a uniquely unethical or evil IDF.
From media stories such as those above to cartoons portraying the IDF as the new Nazis, it is only a short step to the total delegitimization of Israel itself. The lingering question remains: Why is some of the Israeli media part of this charade?
