We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East. (From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

Tuesday, 2 September 2014

"The Future Of Jewish Life In Europe Has Now Become One That Is Questioned" (video)

"Not antisemitism", huh? Stuttgart, Germany, this July
This week marks the 75th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War, and with that in mind Arsen Ostrovsky observes, inter alia, in the Times of Israel:
'When chants of “death to the Jews” or “Jews get out” are common, violent assaults are rising and there are increasing calls for boycotts against Israeli and now kosher products, one cannot but help compare the situation with the 1930’s....
The difference ... is that today’s anti-Semitism is being waged against not only Jews as individuals, but also in the vilification and assault on Israel’s legitimacy, as the Jew among the nations, with false claims and malicious distortions of truth cloaked as acceptable criticism of Zionism and Israel....
In fact, for today’s anti-Semite, the term ‘Jew’ and ‘Israeli’ are interchangeable. They are one and the same. This was demonstrated perhaps most aptly by a recent pro-Palestinian protestor in Geneva, who charged at a Synagogue, with a sign exclaiming “Every Synagogue is an Israeli Embassy.”
Many Jews across Europe are now increasingly being forced to change their way of life, hide their identities and separate from their Judaism out of fear of anti-Semitism. Some are even openly questioning: is there even a future still left for them in Europe? ...'
Consequently, Ostrovsky offers a five-way strategy to counteract the problem (read his article here)

Below is a video regarding antisemitism in Europe.

It shows the American Jewish Committee's Director of International Jewish Affairs, Rabbi Andrew Baker (from whose introduction comes the quotation in my header) moderating a panel discussion featuring the consuls general of Spain (Juan Martinez Salazar), Sweden (David E.R. Dangoor), Hungary (Karoly Dan) and Poland (Ewa Junczyk Ziomecka).

It's a serious discussion and a long one, and probably best listened to in installments, while doing the dishes, the ironing, polishing the car, or soaking in the bath.



And see this disturbing (much shorter) video on antisemitism on American campuses here


Meanwhile, for an intriguing assessment of who came out best from Operation Protective Edge, see Elliott Abrams's substantial article here

Monday, 1 September 2014

Jonathan Sacerdoti On Antisemitism in the UK (video) & Melanie Phillips on The Antisemitism Spawned by Gaza (video)

The articulate young British pro-Israel activist explains the background to and purpose of yesterday's huge rally in London calling for "zero tolerance" against antisemitism that, as he says, contained "powerful voices".


More on the rally here

See also Melanie Phillips talking (for nearly an hour) in Israel, "this life-affirming place of hope":


Bound First For A Persian Market: Sizer's lowdown on the "Lobby"

Regular readers of my blog may recall that our old mate the vicar of Virginia Water announced back in May that he had been asked by a publisher (name undisclosed) to write a book on the "Zionist Lobby in the UK" and that he was seeking information from his Facebook faithful regarding
"published sources that elaborate on the influence of the Zionist Lobby in the UK on the media, press, business, banks, universities, politics and Parliament".
And that much more recently he asked his Facebook faithful for help with the proofing.

Well, it seems that the opus is complete:

And its author, who of course is no stranger to Iran or  Iran's propaganda channel Press TV, reveals further:


I wonder whether it will also eventually find its way into Chinese and Korean, as do, it seems, works by the vicar attempting to undermine Christian Zionism.

As for the publisher, as far as I'm aware the identity is still tightly under wraps: maybe I was right when I guessed "The Rouhani Press" ...

Sunday, 31 August 2014

Shan't Learn, Can't Learn: The BBC's Jon Donnison

Yesterday: another biased Donnison tweet; more in similar vein today
He really is a piece of work, the BBC's Jon Donnison.

One of the most perceptibly and persistently biased of all the BBC's Middle East correspondents, he has countless times been shown up for the egregiously prejudiced and under-informed reporter that he is by the incisive and knowledgeable Hadar Sela of BBC Watch.

But instead of taking Ms Sela's well-founded criticisms to heart and attempting to rectify his prejudiced reportage so that it reflects the objective approach incumbent upon him and his colleagues by the BBC Charter, he has chosen not to learn from his mistakes and instead has taken to making childish jibes about his tenacious Israeli critic that says far more about him than about her:



Indeed, Al Beeb's former Gaza correspondent, who was sent back there from Sydney to cover Operation Protective Edge, seems never to have quite come to terms with his new billet here in Australia.

Among his numerous tweets (some of them of puerile schoolboy standard that not only let him down, but also, I should have thought, the BBC) are many regarding Gaza  and Israel; no prizes for guessing the comparative twists.  Indeed, a sticky post on his Twitter page big-notes the photos he took when last there; you can guess their thrust.

Too many of his reports from and comments about Australia are flippant and shallow.

Yesterday he tweeted this, which I suspect reveals as much about Donnison's attitude as the Somali man's:

Donnison seems to have made little effort to delve deeply into Australia's history and politics, preferring, it would appear, to rely on gleanings from left-wing sources including leftists with Twitter accounts.

His latest piece is a typically superficial and partisan one about Australia's "stop the boats" policy, by which illegal mainly economic migrants wanting to jump the established immigration queue fall victim to international people traffickers, and which in typical leftist style he interprets as the unconscionable response of a heartless government backed by racist people.  (I wonder whether he realises that the long defunct "White Australia Policy" to which he refers in the article originated less in racism than in the fear that uncurbed migration from South-East Asia was inexorably driving down workingmen's wages.) And, true to form, he manages to make Gaza and the Gazans a feature of the piece.

Twitter, indeed, appears to encourage lazy journalism, and lazy journalism is what many of Donnison's critics consider a failing of his: witness, for instance, this.


It seems a given that BBC staff scan and cite the Guardian and Ha'aretz for news of Israel, to the virtual exclusion of centrist and (perish the thought!) rightwing media (except to disdain or mock the latter's content).  Preferring leftist sources, which in Australia's case means the Fairfax Press and not Murdoch 's News Corp is, evidently in almost every Beeboid's DNA.

Donnison's recent dismissive tweet about the article in Ha'aretz on antisemitism in Australia by former Australian Jewish News editor Dan Goldberg  which originally appeared in the latter paper is a probable example of Donnison's mindset. 

Goldberg had opened the article thus
"Australia is not afflicted by the same degree of anti-Semitism reportedly sweeping Europe, but there is a “palpable level of concern” among Jews here following a spike in anti-Semitic incidents since the Gaza war broke out seven weeks ago, some Australian academics warn...."
and it took care not to accentuate the problem.

It did, though, observe, inter alia:
'There have also been several physical assaults on Jews here, but the torrent of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic abuse has come from the sewers of social media.
 “There has been a seismic shift,” said Prof. Mark Baker, director of the Jewish center at Melbourne’s Monash University. “It’s as though the images that we once viewed on television have popped out of the computer screen and landed in our bedrooms.
“People feel as though they are living inside the experience of ISIS beheadings, anti-Israel demonstrations and the Gaza Israel war,” he told Haaretz.
“Everyone is talking about this incessantly, fearing that the world is no longer recognizable, and living in fear of an impending catastrophe. The community is in a tailspin and looking for answers.”
Prof. Danny Ben-Moshe, another Melbourne-based academic who analyzes anti-Semitism, agreed there had been a shift within Australian Jewry but stopped short of describing it as “seismic.”'
 “The collective well-being of Australian Jewry has been adversely affected,” Ben-Moshe told Haaretz. “Jews are neither as free nor as safe as they were prior to this war.” ....'
And it concluded:
'Zeddy Lawrence, the editor of the Australian Jewish News, agreed there was a “palpable sense of concern” within the Jewish community, but did not go as far to suggest the community is in a tailspin.
“There have only been a few isolated anti-Semitic incidents,” he said. “But seeing what has happened in Europe obviously heightens fears of a backlash against the community here.”
In the wake of the incident on Jewish pupils on a school bus in Sydney, Dr. Dvir Abramovich, chairman of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission, wrote earlier this month: “There are alarming developments and chilling signs that are making the Jewish community here less comfortable, less confident and very worried that the flames of anti-Semitism are burning more furiously at home.” '
 I suspect the mention of the media, which invoked memories of the disgraceful Mike Carlton article in the Fairfax Press and its accompanying odious cartoon (above, right) prompted Donnison's dismissive attitude, because it wouldn't do for a Beeboid to concede antisemitism on the part of fellow journalistic leftists indulging in a spot of Israel-bashing, now, would it?

Chuck the chutzpah, Jonno!
Indeed, I seem to recall that Carlton or someone of his ilk gleefully retweeted this example (right) of what passes for Donnisonian wisdom.


And  I've a hunch that a piece by a Muslim editor on his community's concern about increasing "Islamophobia" in Australia would not have been so cavalierly treated.

That's no alibi for you, Jonno
Still, knowing how fond Donnison and his fellow lefties are of the Fairfax Press, I trust they will tweet the link to this article that appears in today's Sydney Morning Herald, by an Israeli living in Australia, Dana Amir:
'....Two weeks ago in this paper, an anonymous Israeli declared shame in her citizenship. I'm proud that she has the right to do this, and can do so safely, both here and in Israel. However, her anonymity was insulting. Australia and Israel is not Gaza or Nazi Germany. Israelis and Australian Jews can, and do, criticise Israel.
Although I'm sad that it has been forced to do so, I'm really proud that Israel has invested billions of dollars on bomb shelters and air-raid sirens and radars to detect incoming rockets and missiles to shoot down those rockets, all in the name of protecting its people.
I'm proud that I could do my small part in protecting other Israelis by serving in the army. The army consists of people just like you and me; people who would prefer to start their adult life  earlier, but understand the importance of defending their country. That said, I hated the idea of fighting Palestinians.
For, whether we like it or not – or they like it or not – Israelis and Palestinians share a homeland. We could fight each other for another few generations, or we could divide the land so both sides have a state. I'm proud that successive Israeli governments, buoyed by majority opinion, have been willing to do just that. We have engaged in peace talks, we have made offers. I  know there are Palestinians who also want to stop fighting. I don't know how many, because their media remain full of calls for Israel's destruction, many of their politicians describe Jews as sub-human and their leaders keep turning down Israeli peace offers.
But I know peaceful Palestinians exist, and exist in significant numbers....
What I also know is that Hamas hates me – not because I'm an Israeli, but because I'm a Jew. I know  that Hamas sees itself as being in an inter-generational war with my people. That is why it launches rockets and digs tunnels to provoke fighting with Israel. Not because it thinks it will win, but because it thinks that, after another 10, hundred, thousand such rounds of conflict, the Jews will find somewhere else to live.
Well, we won't. And while I'm proud that the Israeli army does what it must to protect Israelis, it breaks my heart when innocent Palestinians die. I believe that their deaths are the result of Hamas's unbelievably cynical tactics, and I'm proud of the lengths to which Israel goes to prevent Palestinian casualties...."
Read Dana Amir's entire article here

Saturday, 30 August 2014

The D[h]im & The Dutiful: "Tragic" says Marvellous Melanie

Recently, in this land Down Under, the Uniting Church (which, incidentally, is not renowned for love and affection towards Israel) held an interfaith meeting on the illustrated theme, coined in response to the "We'll fight radical Islam for 100 years, says ex-Army lead Peter Leahy" headline that which appeared in The Australian on 9 August.

That headline appeared above this report, in which Professor Leahy, a retired lieutenant-general who is director of Canberra University’s National Security Institute and part of the Abbott government’s team carrying out a comprehensive review of Australia's defence,  maintained:
"Australia is involved in the early stages of a war which is likely to last for the rest of the century. We must be ready to protect ourselves and, where necessary, act pre-emptively to neutralise the evident threat. Get ready for a long war....
They [the government] should advance a narrative that explains that radical Islam­ism and the terrorism it breeds at home and abroad will remain a significant threat for the long term, it will require considerable effort, the expenditure of blood and treasure and it will, of necessity, restrict our rights and liberties"....
He said radical Islamists intent on a new world order were already a threat to the survival of nations in the Middle East and Africa.
If the declared caliphate in Syria and Iraq survived, bases would be established there for attacks on the West and that would embolden “home grown” radicals to attempt attacks in Australia. Military action would be needed to eliminate the threat.
Radicals saw the West as “the far enemy” and they were undoubtedly planning more attacks in Australia. Senior intelligence believes the view that the threat posed by radical Islam would pass was “optimistic”....'
All pretty sensible stuff, we may think, particularly in view of the number of Islamic fighters from Australia known to be fighting abroad, including the father of the seven-year-old pictured recently holding a severed head.

But smacking of "media vilification" in the minds of the above-mentioned conference (at which a rabbi, the not widely known Zalman Kastel of Sydney was present) and its supporters, apparently.

For they issued the the following statement, all motherhood and apple pie and good up to a point, though arguably a reckless over-generalisation, which some "as-a-Jews" as well as some of the more naive (or indifferent to Israel, rationality, and to women's rights) among the Jewish community have hastened to append their names:
'As people committed to building a healthy, cohesive and diverse communities in Australia, we have observed with dismay and empathy the way our Muslim friends have been affected by the language and tone of recent political statements and media coverage. We agree with the concerns of Muslim community leaders that the language and policies of our leaders should not marginalise or vilify people of Muslim faith, and that rhetoric used in relation to Australian security and conflicts around the world should not cause further division in our society, or make anyone feel alienated from the nation they call home.
We believe people of Muslim faith are being unfairly smeared in the eyes of the Australian public by both subtle and overt links to violent extremism in political and media discourse.
This month in Sydney; Herald-Sun photo
We know and understand the deep concern and hurt this is causing to our Muslim friends and the risks this kind of generalisation has for social harmony and cohesion.
The violence and values of extremists like ISIS are not representative of the vast majority of Muslim people in Australia, who are characterised better by their commitment to peace, community and mutual respect.
We stand in solidarity with all people who are suffering the results of war, violence and terror around the world, recognising the dignity of all people and their right to enjoy freedom from persecution and oppression.
We celebrate the diversity of the Australian community and recognise the valuable contribution of people of Muslim faith to our culture and community.
We know that vilification and alienation are not the way to peace or social harmony, but that authentic relationships, solidarity, listening, learning and mutual respect go along way to building the kind of community we’d like to live in.'
And now, worse, far worse, we read in the UK Jewish Chronicle, that the d[h]imwitted British Board of Deputies has dutifully undertaken to make common cause with the Muslim Council of Britain:
'Muslim and Jewish leaders have united in calling for stronger collaboration between their communities in the wake of the Gaza conflict.
In an unprecedented joint statement, the Board of Deputies and the Muslim Council of Britain condemned civilian deaths as tragic and called for efforts to avoid them.
They also condemned any expression of antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism generally, calling on both communities to “redouble efforts to work together and get to know one another”.
But the statement was not without controversy, with both sides unable to agree the exact meaning behind one key line.
The line reads: “The targeting of civilians is completely unacceptable and against our religious traditions.” ....'  (See more here)
Rightly comments the great and incomparable Melanie Phillips, who puts what passes for the Anglo-Jewish leadership to shame:
'It is hard to exaggerate the stupidity of the UK Jewish Board of Deputies in what it has just done. It has signed a joint statement with the Muslim Council of Britain condemning antisemitism and Islamophobia and urging that the Middle East conflict should not prevent good community relations in Britain. Apart from the false equivalence between antisemitism and Islamophobia, which equates a metaphysical global derangement – the cause of centuries of pogroms and genocide against the Jews – with a spurious thought-crime invented to silence legitimate criticism of Islam, these were unexceptionable pieties.
However, the statement also contains this passage:
"The death of every civilian is a tragedy, and every effort should be taken to minimise such losses. The targeting of civilians is completely unacceptable and against our religious traditions."
Daily Mail, 25 March 2009
The MCB is an umbrella organisation, a number of whose member groups are aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and support Hamas. The Board of Deputies may have assumed the second sentence above could only refer to Hamas, since the IDF does not target civilians and goes to great lengths to avoid hurting them wherever possible. But there is no way the MCB would ever suggest that Israel behaves honourably while Hamas does not. It should therefore have been blindingly obvious that the MCB would do what it has immediately done – claim that the Board had agreed with it that both Israel and Hamas had targeted civilians. The Board has thus now enabled the MCB to claim that the UK's Jewish community leadership has condemned Israel for targeting civilians.
Unbelievable. But that's not the full extent of it. The Board seems to be proud that this joint statement is an "unprecedented" achievement. But just look at its new friend.
MCB leaders have in the past strongly supported Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of Hamas who supports suicide bombings against Israelis (and previously, British forces in Iraq) and who has also asserted that the Torah permits Jews to spill the blood of others and seize their money and land.
The MCB boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day, for which it was shunned by the British government until it ended its boycott. In 2009, its then deputy secretary general, Daud Abdullah, signed the Istanbul Declaration which threatened violence against Israel supporters and British troops.
In 2005, it offered its condolences to the family of the leading Hamas terrorist Abdul Aziz al Rantissi after he was killed by the Israelis. Its former Secretary-General, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, branded Israel a "Nazi" state, accused it of "murderous leadership", "Zionist brutality" and "the ethnic cleansing of Palestine", and compared Hamas suicide bombers to Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. Also that year, the BBC TV Panorama programme exposed the influence on the MCB of the Islamist thinker Sayed Maududi, who preached the need for jihad to bring abut the "universal revolution" of Islamic state rule.
In short, it is beyond astounding that the Board of Deputies should have had anything to do with the MCB at all. Its action has also dealt a blow to all who are struggling to deal with Islamic extremism in the UK. For at a stroke the MCB, which in any sane universe should be shunned as a threat not just to Jews but to Britain, has been awarded a kite-mark of respectability and decency by – of all people – the Jews.
The Board of Deputies is not fit for purpose. It has shown that it does not have a clue about the true nature of the threat posed to Jews and to Britain by Islamic extremism. Britain's Jewish community is leaderless at a time when strong, brave and wise leadership has never been more urgently and desperately needed. Tragic.'
As for the often-heard analogy between antisemitism and "Islamophobia", and more specifically that in Europe Muslims are "the new Jews", James Kirchick has a rather splendid refutation here

Friday, 29 August 2014

David Singer: The Key to Peace Lies in the Past

Entitled "Palestine – Unearthing Past Remains Key To Resolving Future", this is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The cease fire agreement ending hostilities in the Fifty Day War between Israel and Hamas marks yet another milestone attesting to the failure of Jews and Arabs peacefully to resolve their claims to sovereignty and self-determination in the territory once called “Palestine”.

Amazingly, the continuing inability of the parties  – and the international community – to reach consensus on identifying when this long running conflict actually commenced, ensures it will continue to remain unresolved.

Emeritus Professor Richard Falk – formerly United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights in the West Bank – still claims in his latest article that the conflict started in 1947.
“Israel was born in 1948. Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly [dated 29 November 1947 – Ed] is widely regarded as the most convincing legal basis for founding the State of Israel.”

Falk gave the following reasons for his viewpoint on 1 August 2012:
“I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law.”
Falk’s opinion mirrors Article 20 of the Palestine Liberation Organization Charter:
“The Balfour Declaration [1917], the Mandate for Palestine [1922], and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”
Falk’s opinion is not shared by Matti Friedman – who in his latest article identifies the starting date as being much earlier than 1947:

“The Israel story is framed in the same terms that have been in use since the early 1990s—the quest for a “two-state solution.” It is accepted that the conflict is “Israeli-Palestinian,” meaning that it is a conflict taking place on land that Israel controls—0.2 percent of the Arab world—in which Jews are a majority and Arabs a minority. The conflict is more accurately described as “Israel-Arab,” or “Jewish-Arab”—that is, a conflict between the 6 million Jews of Israel and 300 million Arabs in surrounding countries. (Perhaps “Israel-Muslim” would be more accurate, to take into account the enmity of non-Arab states like Iran and Turkey, and, more broadly, 1 billion Muslims worldwide.) This is the conflict that has been playing out in different forms for a century, before Israel existed, before Israel captured the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank, and before the term “Palestinian” was in use.
The “Israeli-Palestinian” framing allows the Jews, a tiny minority in the Middle East, to be depicted as the stronger party. It also includes the implicit assumption that if the Palestinian problem is somehow solved the conflict will be over, though no informed person today believes this to be true. This definition also allows the Israeli settlement project, which I believe is a serious moral and strategic error on Israel’s part, to be described not as what it is—one more destructive symptom of the conflict—but rather as its cause.”
Adopting Friedman’s viewpoint over Falk’s, one can confidently nominate the 1920 San Remo Conference as the legal basis for founding the State of Israel – when England, France, Italy, and Japan agreed to divide the areas of the 400 years old Ottoman Empire conquered by them in World War 1 into three mandates: Mesopotamia (now Iraq), Syria/Lebanon and Palestine.

This carve-up was intended to see Arab self-determination eventually achieved in 99.99 per cent of the conquered Ottoman territory and Jewish self-determination in the remaining 0.01 per cent.

These proposals were unanimously endorsed by all 51 member States of the League of Nations in 1922.

But they proved to be temporary only in relation to Palestine – because three months later the provisions of Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine enabled Great Britain to restrict the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home to within 23 per cent of the tiny area of land originally set aside to achieve that objective at San Remo – with the remaining 77 per cent of Mandatory Palestine eventually becoming an independent Palestinian Arab state in 1946 – that is today called Jordan.

The period 1920-1947 without doubt covers a host of critically important legal and historical signposts that cannot be forgotten or buried.

Whilst the two-state solution ultimately created between 1946-1948 as a result of the San Remo Conference is ignored  – attempts to resolve sovereignty in today’s highly volatile West Bank and Gaza – are destined to certain failure and renewed conflict.

The two-state solution posited by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap creating a 22nd independent sovereign Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza between Jordan and Israel for the first time ever in recorded history has failed to materialize – despite twenty years of intensive political and diplomatic efforts by the international community.

The PLO (founded in 1964) and Hamas (founded in 1987) both seek to unravel the decisions made at San Remo in 1920.

They need to be replaced as Israel’s Arab negotiating partners by the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine – Jordan and Israel – and possibly Egypt – to determine and allocate sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between their respective States.

Unearthing the past still remains the key to peacefully resolving the future.

Thursday, 28 August 2014

"A Script Written By Hamas": Media Manipulation and Mendacity (includes video)

The BBC's Donnison showing his bias and ignorance yet again
By Professor  Phyllis Chesler, inter alia, here;
'Monday night, on the upper east side of New York City, a gang of anti-Semitic "thugs" attacked a peaceful but visibly Jewish man – he was wearing a skullcap (a yarmulke or kippa). They also attacked his wife.
Two cars "flying Palestinian flags and multiple motorcycles" pulled up to the couple at 8:00 p.m. while it was still daylight. They began yelling "anti-Jewish statements." Then, they threw a water bottle that hit his wife, and, when her husband came to her defense, they "punched him in the head."
The suspects fled. No arrests have been made. The 27-year-old man refused medical attention at the scene.
This is my neighborhood, my home town. This incident took place about a mile away from where I live and work. So far, I have found only one brief article about this in the New York Post.
Are there more such incidents that are not being covered?
There are so many synagogues on the upper east side of New York City and so many visibly Jewish men and women. New York City's largest mosque is also on the upper east side. What are Jews supposed to do? Hide our faith – even as more and more Muslims in this very neighborhood proudly proclaim theirs by wearing hijab, burqas, Islamic skullcaps, and Islamic dress? Something is very wrong with this picture.
Jews do not attack Muslims or Christians – or anyone for that matter – for wearing religiously identifiable clothing or jewelry. Only ​some ​Muslims ​appear ​do that – ​some ​Muslims or pro-Muslim sympathizers.
Jews and Christians are not allowed to openly and visibly practice their religion in most Muslim countries, and yet Muslims in America and Europe expect to be able to practice their faith, often in very aggressive ways, in both America and Europe....
Now, Jews everywhere are being held responsible for and hostage to Israeli acts of self-defense, which, alas, have been touted in the media as aggressive and genocidal acts. The media, the professoriate, international bodies, religious and political leaders have followed this lethal narrative for so long and so intensely that people really believe that Jews and Jewish Israel are evil and must be attacked on sight.
What we are seeing is this: The decades of Big Lies in the media, inflammatory sermons in mosques, churches, and synagogues, which falsely present Israel and Jews as genocidal Nazis, have finally empowered the latent hatred among Arab Muslims and their sympathizers in the diaspora to freely attack individual Jewish civilians as targets and symbols – nay, as collaborators – with the Israeli regime....'

By Australian Jewish News publisher Robert Magid in the latest issue, out today, a excellent op-ed entitled "The Media's True Lies" prompted by his recent visit to Britain, and the high levels of indignation at Israel's actions in Operation Protective Shield among the public there, prompting disturbances and discomfort for Jews. 
 '.... For a whole month the visual media has been bombarding us with what Hamas wants us to see ....
The conclusion we are to draw: "Israel bombs – innocent people die".
What we have witnessed this month is [sic] the most slavish, most egregious examples of media manipulation which can only be described as propaganda: a Hollywood show, produced and directed by Hamas and performed by the corps of media producers, directors, journalists, freelancers and stringers presented verbatim from a script written by Hamas.
Forgotten is the cause of the war: deadly barrages of rockets directed at Israel unprovoked and the construction of tunnels intended for a massive attack on civilians in the South.  Rather than Netanyahu rushing to war, in Israel the main criticism of him is that he held back so long despite ample evidence  that Hamas was building tunnels under Israel....'
 He goes on:
'.... Why aren't we told about the manipulation of information such as the rearrangement of bodies for the cameras. Why do they keep repeating ... that according to the UN the overwhelming majority of the casualties are civilians?
They know thatthe dubious information is provided by Hamas and the UN has no independent means of verifying it.  According to Israel's checks of the dead, a majority are combatants.
We are not told that journalists are regularly physically threatened if they deviate from the script.  Why haven't journalists reported even after they left Gaza that they operated under coercion?....'
I can only suggest that the answer to the last question might be that the journalists fear that the media outlets for which they work might on a future occasion send them back there ...

For more on this subject of intimidation of journalists be sure to read David Gerstman's article here  and Daniel Greenfield's article here 

Three cheers for this leading American Reform rabbi!

As for media bias in Britain, please don't neglect to look at the latest posts by blogger and activist Edgar Davidson here and here

See also Harry's Place here