Israel and Hamas agreed to a 72-hour ceasefire in their current battle. Henny Youngman reviews another funny way out below:
Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/08/01/gaza-crisis-humanitarian-cease-fire-underway/
On July 29, an explosion hit the electricity plant in Gaza, setting it afire. The cause of the explosion is unclear – perhaps from Hamas mortar fire or from Israel – but according to the Times, the uncertainty and Israeli disclaimers were not a reason not to blame Israel from the outset.
IDF Spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said repeatedly that Israel had “no confirmation” of striking the Gaza power plant and that it clearly “was not a target”.
Mark Regev, spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said on CNN that it had definitively cleared the Israel Defense Forces as the cause of the fire as it had reviewed the activities of all of the IDF personnel in the area.
Regardless, the New York Times specifically blamed Israel for the attack in a caption on the front page “In Gaza, Israel bombed 150 sites, including the territory’s only power plant”. In the story on page A6, the paper continued “Israel’s military on Tuesday broadened its offensive, bombing 150 sites, and one strike set ablaze the territory’s only power plant,” The large color photograph alongside the article showed a huge ball of fire and smoke. The same article quotes Lt. Col. Lerner as “I don’t have a clear picture of what happened there.” Interesting that an article right below makes very different statements and there was no quote from Mark Regev.
The article in the Times below it was entitled “Israel Steps Up Airstrikes in Gaza as International Cease-Fire Efforts Stumble.” But reading the article and watching the news makes clear that Hamas rejected the cease fire while all other parties accepted. The cease-fire did not passively “stumble”, but was specifically rejected by Hamas. The article entitled “Loss of Shelter and Electricity Worsens a Crisis for Fleeing Gazans” also stated that “International efforts to secure even short-term cease-fires have so far failed,” fails to mention that it was Hamas that rejected the cease-fire.
In both of the articles, there is not a single mention of Hamas terrorism on the day. Nothing about the missiles that were fired into Israeli cities. Nothing about Palestinian terrorists using tunnels to go into Israel, killing five soldiers and retreating back through the tunnels.
In the world of the Times, there is only one party who suffers, one party at fault.
Sources:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-tunnel-raid-kills-five-idf-soldiers-in-southern-israel/
Operation Protective Edge was launched on July 8 after Palestinian terrorists infiltrated Israel through tunnels and launched missiles across Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated repeatedly that the goal of the operation was to destroy the extensive tunnel network that the terrorists had constructed. “We will not finish the mission, we will not finish the operation without neutralizing the tunnels, which have the sole purpose of destroying our citizens, killing our children,” Netanyahu said.
Remarkably, pictures of the terrorists who use the tunnels have yet to make an appearance to the New York Times. Although numerous pictures and images of terrorists penetrating Israel were made available to journalists, the NYT decided to not print any of them.
Even though dozens of tunnels were uncovered, it took until July 29 for the Times to publish it’s first picture of one – inside the paper on the bottom of page A6 (under a picture of Palestinians mourning). Jodi Rudoren referred to the Israeli military “propaganda push” which “invited a few journalists underground for a tour” as “Israelis exchange nightmare scenarios that are the stuff of action movies” – as if the tunnels were a backstage viewing at a Disneyland movieset.
In three weeks of covering the conflict, the Times featured pictures of Palestinians mourning on the front page seven times (July 11, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24 and 29th). But the root cause of the conflict – Hamas terrorists attacking Israel through the tunnel network – never made it to the front page pictures. The Times actually had a story of the tunnels on the front page on July 29- but decided that a large color photograph of a Palestinian morgue was a more appropriate picture for that article.
It would appear that the underground war is being fought by Hamas and by the Times.
Sources:
Articles and pictures of Gaza tunnels in other papers:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/israel-strikes-30-houses-in-gaza-killing-islamic-jihad-official-1406286950
http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFL6N0Q34PG20140728
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/23/gaza-undergroundhamastunnels.html
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.606903
Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlvnkECJkYc&list=UUawNWlihdgaycQpO3zi-jYg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NBEixuQbYQ&list=UUawNWlihdgaycQpO3zi-jYg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-hH2026OnU&list=UUawNWlihdgaycQpO3zi-jYg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv8xR1FPakY&list=UUawNWlihdgaycQpO3zi-jYg
US President Barack Obama sought to “reset” the relationship between the US and Muslim world. He gave his famous address in Cairo in 2009 called the “New Beginning” which laid out his grand vision.
During the speech, while actively courting the Muslim world, he delivered a stern warning: “We will relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security.” Obama has made good on his promise, prolonging America’s 13-year war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda.
Since Obama’s election, Israel has fought three wars against Hamas. Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization by the US, Canada, EU, Japan, Israel, and as of March, Egypt. The ruling-party of Gaza is sworn to the destruction of Israel. Since 2001, it has launched over 10,000 missiles, over 100 bombings in Israel and conducted several raids inside Israel to abduct civilians and soldiers. As such, Israel has been forced to fight the terrorists frequently.
Despite these facts, on July 27 Obama called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stress Gaza’s near-term needs, while delaying Israel’s real security needs for a later time.
“The President underscored the enduring importance of ensuring Israel’s security, protecting civilians, alleviating Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, and enacting a sustainable ceasefire that both allows Palestinians in Gaza to lead normal lives and addresses Gaza’s long-term development and economic needs, while strengthening the Palestinian Authority. The President stressed the U.S. view that, ultimately, any lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must ensure the disarmament of terrorist groups and the demilitarization of Gaza.“
What does Obama think “relentlessly” means? Something that you do every now and again? Should Israel’s real security needs take a back seat to Gaza’s “long-term development and economic needs”? Obama has continued a War on Terror – without pause – that has claimed the lives of 37 civilians a day on average for 13 years, while he hypocritically asked Israel to defer its security needs against an enemy sworn to its destruction until such enemy develops a sustainable economy.
Is “relentlessly” a policy exclusive to America?
Sources:
New Beginnings speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/NewBeginning/transcripts
July 27 Obama-Netanyahu call transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/27/readout-president-s-call-prime-minister-netanyahu-israel
Egypt Hamas terrorist label:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/04/Egyptian-Court-Bans-Hamas-as-a-Terror-Organization
Pulitzer Prize winner William Safire used to write for the New York Times “On Language.” His fascinating articles would describe the etymology of words; their usage and context. He spent years as a speechwriter for US President Nixon, followed by decades writing for the Times. He had a unique appreciation for words.
Safire would not appreciate the New York Times abuse of language today.
Some words are seldom used in daily speech. When heard or seen, we understand that there is a particular purpose and nuance for their application. Even in comedy.
The old TV sitcom “Seinfeld” had a funny skit about George being set up on a blind date by his friend Jerry. George had a long list of questions to qualify his interest. When asking about her face he said: “Is there a pinkish hue?” The question puzzled his friend Jerry who was setting him up: “A pinkish hue?” he replied. “Yes, a rosy glow.” Jerry: “There’s a hue”. The exchange gets roars of laughter – not only because it is an absurd question to qualify a date, but the word itself is peculiar. I doubt there was ever a time in the history of television that the word “hue” was used so frequently.
We all (think we) know what the word “hue” means – heck, there was even a setting on our TV sets after “brightness” and “contrast” (but being candid, no one ever used it). The word “hue” was replaced by “color” or “tint” on many sets as those words convey a wider spectrum of color. Hue seemed too subtle.
If “hue” is subtle, the word “tinge” is meaningless. While “tinge” may be a slightly more common word, it means a great deal less. Finding the TV’s hue setting and moving it a single notch, would be the equivalent of “tinge”. Only an expert could readily observe the slight change in color. A reasonable person could never be expected to notice a tinge without close and careful examination.
“An anti-Semitic tinge.”
It was curious (alarming?) to see the word “tinge” show up in an article about “The Confrontation in Gaza”, as the New York Times refers to current war in Gaza (avoiding using Israel’s terminology of “Operation Protective Edge” as that might make it appear that Israel was on the defensive).
On July 24, 2014, the New York Times ran an article called “As Much of the World Frowns on Israel, Americans Hold Out Support” about how angry the world is with Israel. Americans, according to the article, do not support Israel because they believe that Israel has a basic right to self defense in the face of missile attacks, but because “of the failures of the Arab Spring to spread democracy in the Middle East.” That NYT statement is beyond moronic and ignores the entire Pew report and decades of Pew Surveys which have always shown greater support for Israel than Palestinians.
The following paragraphs continued: “Pro-Palestinian demonstrations are continuing in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam and other European cities, some of them assuming an anti-Semitic tinge.” Quite a phrase “anti-Semitic tinge”.
So what happened in the protests the preceding weeks? On July 20 anti-Israel protestors firebombed a synagogue in the Parisian suburb of Sarcelles. Jewish shops were looted and 18 people were arrested. The French Prime Minister said: “What’s happened in Sarcelles is intolerable: attacking a synagogue or a kosher grocery, is quite simply anti-Semitism, racism.”
Just the week beforehand, a demonstration in Bastille Square in the center of Paris moved towards two synagogues which had hundreds of Jews trapped inside. The crowds chanted “death to the Jews” and “Hitler was right”. That demonstration was such a warning shock to the government that it banned further demonstrations, which took place anyway.
In Belgium, a store with a Palestinian flag and a crossed out Israeli flag in the window put up a sign in Turkish: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Jews are not under any circumstances.” The French text replaced “Jews” with “Zionists.”
In Berlin, Germany protestors were blocked by police in riot gear from bringing their demonstrations to the Holocaust Memorial. That week, an imam at one of Berlin’s mosques gave a sermon that Jews should be killed.
The Associated Press correspondent from Berlin wrote: “The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Italy on Tuesday condemned the rise in anti-Semitic protests and violence over the conflict in Gaza, saying they will do everything possible to combat it in their countries.”
“An anti-Semitic tinge.”
The New York Times deliberately chose to minimize the anti-Semitic motivation of the protestors as it would detract from what the Times considered an appropriate act of protesting against Israel (since the Times doesn’t believe the “confrontation” is truly about self defense). Even as riots broke out in the same cities that witnessed the Holocaust, and those governments called out against the rise in anti-Semitic protests and violence, the Times needed to bury that narrative.
For the Times, “an anti-Semitic tinge” means a few outliers; some bad seeds doing bad things. It ignores the lack of protests against: Russia in the Ukraine; Syria slaughtering its citizens; US in Iraq and Afghanistan; and other government actions in the world that have killed hundred of thousands of civilians over the past few years. Regrettably, the Times does not agree that when protestors only take to the streets when the Jewish State is in a “confrontation,” it brands the protest itself as anti-Semitic. How does it ignore firebombings of synagogues?
Those actions are from the disgraceful anti-Semitism of the protestors. Regarding the media, it is bad enough that it is passively complicit in not identifying the anti-Semitic root cause of the protests. However, to actively trivialize riots, firebombings and death threats against Jews in the streets where millions of innocent Jews were killed, is not merely being complicit- it is an act of anti-Semitism itself.
Let me change the conclusion of the opening paragraph: William Safire would not be upset by the Times use of language. He would be appalled by the New York Times abuse of Jews.
Sources:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28402882
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/berlin-bans-anti-semitic-slogan-gaza-protests-24658551
In 1962, US President John F Kennedy had a showdown with Russia to keep missiles from reaching Cuba. The US blockaded Cuba, and has a strict embargo which continues to exist in various forms today.
Cuba vs. Gaza
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
Near a small town in Texas, dozens of children cross into the United States from Mexico. They carry just their clothing and dreams of building a better future. They were reared on stories from as early as they can recall, about the wonderful qualities of their neighbor to the north. If they could just get there, they would have a chance to make a prosperous life like many others have done in America, the land of opportunity.
Many of the children know little English other than a few words. But they know of a promise etched on a tablet held by the Lady in the Bay:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Magical words written by a young Jewish woman who understood how the persecuted could flourish in America, the land of the free.
In a small town in Gaza, dozens of men cross the border into Israel through underground tunnels. They are armed with grenades, handcuffs and tranquilizers with the hope of kidnapping Israelis. The men have been taught from their earliest days that their neighbors are like monkeys and pigs. While 1.7 million fellow Arabs are Israeli citizens, they refer to them as “Palestinians”, because they refuse to even mention the name of the Zionist entity.
The men in arms know Hebrew, but prefer to sing their songs in Arabic as they launch their attack on Israel:
“Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”
The song is a hymn for martyrs including fellow bomb makers and assassins. It brings back memories of the songs they learned in school that death is an honor, if it brings the destruction of Israel.
In America, politicians were alarmed by the influx of so many children coming into the country from Mexico. Texas Governor Rick Perry said “Every day of delay risks more lives. Every child allowed to remain encourages hundreds more to attempt the journey.” He received a pledge of $3.7 billion from the US President to secure the border and keep the young dreamers out. Some cash for calm.
In Israel, leaders assess how to best shield the country from Palestinian missiles in the air, and Arab terrorists tunneling underground from abducting and killing people. The Israeli Prime Minister deployed his army and air force, but calm has not been bought with dollars and lives. The Hamas Hatred is deeply ingrained.
In Mexico, a child thinks Americans are amazing;
in Gaza, a child is taught that Israelis are sub-human.
On the Mexican border, people are armed with hope;
on the Gazan border, men carry weapons of war.
In Mexico, people see the limits of their home country;
in Gaza, people wish to export their daily nightmare.
On the Mexican border someone dreams of building a new life in the US;
on the Gazan border, people come to kill Israelis.
Along the US/Mexico border, the world understands the need for the US to secure its border against infiltrators looking for work; on the Israel/Gaza border, the world admonishes Israel for its actions against terrorists and kidnappers.
Sources:
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=758&fld_id=758&doc_id=1709
http://online.wsj.com/articles/israel-expands-ground-operation-in-gaza-1405836870
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=111&doc_id=4567
Israel is blessed with many creative minds. It has used this gift to cure diseases and win Nobel prizes in various fields of science and economics. Because of the vicious neighborhood in which it resides, it also uses its creativity to build sophisticated offensive and defensive weapon systems.
Israel has a vastly superior military capability than the Palestinian terrorists. The country’s defensive technological edge has helped to greatly reduce their casualty figures in the latest wave of terrorist attacks. In particular, the “Iron Dome” has shielded Israeli civilians from well over 1000 rockets launched from Gaza towards dense population centers. Had the Israeli technology not been in place, the casualty figures would certainly be high.
Would more Israeli deaths somehow make this combat “fair”? Do an “even” number of casualties make each side comparable? Those are distorted views of proportionality.
Would the world somehow be happier with more dead Israeli teenagers on their way home from school? Happy with dead Israelis who were sent to root out evil by foot rather than through an air campaign? Are drones attacks strictly within the purview of President Obama’s legal and military team?
Remarkably, in an effort to minimize the loss of life of the enemy, Israel continues to put its own young soldiers in harms way.
In the spring of 2002, roughly 50 Israelis and 50 Palestinians were killed over a three week period. To a casual observer, that tragedy might appear “proportionate” because the number of dead were the same for each side. However, the intent was not remotely the same: the Palestinians attacked and killed civilians and then Israeli soldiers who tried to prevent other attacks on civilians while minimizing Arab deaths. (see the video below).
In these past weeks, Hamas already committed hundreds of war crimes by deliberately attacking civilians. It continues to do so while putting its own civilian population in harms way. Yet, the world looks away.
The principle of self-defense in the case of Operation Protective Edge is unquestioned. An enemy that is dedicated to the annihilation of a people and the destruction of a country, launched over 10,000 rockets at civilians over the past six years. Hamas has thousands of additional missiles and is actively using them. The Israeli military goal is clear, although difficult to achieve in a densely populated area like Gaza.
Israel must continue to use care in rooting out the terrorists and their weapons. It will, unfortunately, use ground troops to minimize the loss of life to Arab civilians, which will greatly increase the risk of their own lives.
Now, Israeli soldiers will try to avoid the hornet’s nest of Gaza while eliminating the terrorists and their weapons of terror. Civilized people around the world should pray for a continued lack of proportionality in casualty figures, as Israel places its technological superiority on hold and attempts to protect innocent lives on both sides.
Sources:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/proportionality-principle-of/
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter4_rule14
First One Through 