Category Archives: Middle East Analysis

Israel and Wars

Posted on by
17

Human beings have been at war with each other for thousands of years.  The past 100 years have been particularly violent.

World War I began in 1914, and claimed roughly 16 million people (including 7 million civilians.) The years that followed saw repeated conflicts with some of the worst death tolls in human history: World War II (60+ million); Sino-Japanese war (20 million); Chinese Civil War (7.5 million); Russian Civil War (5 million); and on and on.

One hundred years on, in 2014, battles continue to rage in Syria, Ukraine and around Africa including: Somalia; Sudan; Libya; Guinea-Bissau and the Central Africa Republic. Many of these conflicts are a long way from being resolved.

There are many conspiracy theorists who believe Jews are behind all of the wars in the world. These anti-Semites have bought the lines and lies of Hamas, the democratically-elected Palestinian terrorist organization, which has stated their twisted thinking in their charter:

“The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream. This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein. As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it” (Article 22)

Most wars have nothing to do with Israel.  Muslim countries and territories have been in roughly 50 wars since the founding of Israel in 1948 which have killed over 8.3 million people.  Wars involving Israel account for 1% of those fatalities.  By way of comparison, wars with world powers (US, Russia and France) against Muslim countries killed over 7 times as many people as wars involving Israel.

Over 90% of fatalities in wars with a Muslim country are in wars against other Muslims.

But is it easier to blame yourself or a scapegoat?

List of recent Muslim Wars:

  • 1983-2005 Sudan (Muslim)-South Sudan (Christian)- 1.8 million killed
  • 1980-1988 Iran (Muslim)-Iraq (Muslim) 1.5 million, including 200,000 Kurdish civilians, many from mustard gas
  • 1967-1970 Nigeria (Muslim) civil war – 1.2+ million
  • 1975-2002 Angola (Muslim) civil war 800,000+
  • 1955-1972 Sudan (Muslim/christian) civil war- 500,000 killed
  • 1991-2006 Somalia (Muslim) civil war 300,000+
  • 1971 Bangladesh (Muslim)-west Pakistan(Muslim) 300,000
  • 1974-1980 Ethiopian (Muslim) civil war 250,000+
  • 1954-1962 France-Algeria (Muslim) 250,000
  • 1976-1990 Lebanon civil war (Muslim/Christian fighting) 200,000+ killed
  • 2011-present Syria civil war (Muslim) 170,000+
  • 2003-2011 US-Iraq (Muslim) 160,000+ killed
  • 1962-1970 Yemen (Muslim) Civil War/Egypt(Muslim) 100,000+, including thousands of civilians from mustard gas
  • 1979-1988 USSR-Afghanistan (Muslim) 100,000 killed
  • 1992-1995 Bosnian War  100,000 killed; 1 million displaced
  • 1975-1990 Indonesia (Muslim)-East Timor(Christian) 100,000 killed, mostly Christians
  • 1994-1995 Russia- Chechnya (Muslim) 80,000
  • 1991-2002 Sierra Leone (Muslim) civil war 50,000+
  • 2001-present US-Afghanistan (Muslim) 47,000+
  • 1984-present Turkey (Muslim)-Kurds 44,000
  • 1999 Russia – Chechnya (Muslim) 40,000+
  • 1990-1991 US-Iraq (Muslim), Kuwait (Muslim) 35,000
  • 2006-2009 Somalia (Muslim)-Ethiopia 28,000
  • 1982-1983 Israel (Jewish)-Lebanon (Muslim) 27,000
  • 1982 Syria (Muslim) Hama uprising 20,000
  • 1948-1949 Israel(Jewish) – Egypt (Muslim), Syria(Muslim), Jordan(Muslim), Iraq(Muslim), Saudi Arabia (Muslim), Sudan(Muslim), Yemen(Muslim) 18,000
  • 1973 Israel(Jewish)-Egypt(Muslim); Syria(Muslim) 18,000
  • 1967 Israel(Jewish)-Egypt(Muslim); Jordan(Muslim); Syria(Muslim) 16,000
  • 1971 India (Hindu)-Pakistan(Muslim) 13,000
  • 2011 Libya (Muslim) civil war 8000+
  • 1947-1948 India(Hindu)-Pakistan(Muslim) 7,500
  • 1965 India (Hindu)-Pakistan(Muslim) 6800
  • 2000-2008 Israel (Jewish)-Palestinians 6500
  • 2004- Shia Insurgency in Yemen 5000
  • 2009-present Somalia(Muslim) civil war 4000
  • 2001 AlQaeda (Muslim)- US 3000
  • 1999 India (Hindu)-Pakistan(Muslim) 2500
  • 1987-1993 Israel (Jewish)-Palestinians 2300
  • 2009-present south Yemen(Muslim) 1500
  • 2008 Israel(Jewish)-Hamas(Muslim) 1400
  • 2005-2010 Chad (Muslim/christian) civil war 1000+
  • 1990 Iraq (Muslim)-Kuwait(Muslim) 1000+ killed
  • 2006 Israel (Jewish)-Hezbollah(Muslim) 600
  • 1989-1991 Mauritania(Muslim)-Senegal(Muslim) 500
  • 1985 Mali (Muslim)- Burkina Faso (Muslim) 250
  • 2012 Israel (Jewish)- Hamas 200+
  • 1991-2001 Djibouti civil war 100+

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

http://www.un.org/en/sc/meetings/records/2014.shtml

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397

The Holocaust and the Nakba

Posted on by
45

Roger Cohen penned a piece in the New York Times Op-Ed on July 15 that suggested the pathway to peace in the Middle East is that “Jews should study the Nakba. Arabs should study the Holocaust.” Putting aside the naiveté of the suggestion, the comparison is disgusting in itself.

The Holocaust was a genocide of a people. It was a deliberate attempt of an elected government to commit genocide against a select group of its own citizens. As Nazi Germany conquered more territory, it continued to implement its plan of eradicating the Jews – which it deemed an inferior life form – in those additional lands. Not satisfied with only killing millions of innocents, the Nazis tortured and performed medical experiments on these unarmed men, women and children. It was one of the darkest periods of mankind.

The Palestinian Nakba was a civil war over control of land. Arabs in Palestine protested to the ruling authority (the British) to block the establishment of a Jewish national homeland as called for by the League of Nations (the precursor to the United Nations). The Arabs themselves initiated the fight to stop the implementation of international law, and launched multi-year riots and then a war to destroy Israel. Their Nakba was that they were not allowed to return to homes in the country they just sought to destroy.

How are these two events remotely comparable?

  • One was about life; one was about land.
  • One was about a government wiping out its citizens; one was about citizens fighting the government.
  • One was about passive unarmed civilians; one was about warring parties.
  • One left survivors scattered around the globe; one left survivors a few miles from their homes, living with the same people in a land that they wanted, which the UN had proposed to split anyway.
  • One made the United Nations call for human rights all over the world; the other had the UN create a special niche entity just for the losing party to perpetuate their civil war.

The events could not be more different. The only things they have in common is that they occurred around the same time in history and both involved Jews.

But Israel was not born from the ashes of the Holocaust and planted in the ground of a Palestinian Nakba. The only “fruit” of the Holocaust was the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The preamble of the UDHR clearly stated that the “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous act which have outraged the conscience of mankind,” – the sickening actions of the Holocaust created the declaration meant to benefit all mankind.

Regarding Palestine, Jewish history in the land predated the Holocaust by thousands of years. The Ottomans welcomed Jews and they moved throughout the region from 1800 to 1914 at rates that dwarfed all other groups. After the Ottoman Empire broke apart, the League of Nations sought the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in 1920, decades before WWII. The Arabs rioted in 1920 and 1929 against the action, and in 1936 began what has become a 78-year running civil war to prevent – and later eradicate – the Jewish State. The Arab “Nakba” – their grievance about homes destroyed and left behind – is because they lost the battle they initiated. The “fruit” of the Nakba was the establishment of UNRWA by the United Nations which has encouraged the Arabs to never abandon their civil war. The rotten fruit has left the Palestinians to fester and subject to abuse by their host countries, including Lebanon and Syria. It has benefited no one.

Perhaps the first person to learn about the Holocaust and the Nakba is Roger Cohen.

The Times should be reprimanded for continuing to print pieces that give legitimacy to those who compare Israel to Nazi Germany and Netanyahu to Hitler. It gives cover to anti-Semites in Europe and the world who paint the Jewish state in Nazi colors. The term “Never Again” born from the massacres of innocents in the Holocaust means more than not allowing genocides to happen again. Civilized people should not trivialize evil. For a global paper like the Times to do so specifically against the Jewish State is reprehensible.

Sources:

http://www.holocaustawareness.com/the-udhr-document.html

http://www.badil.org/en/youth-education-a-activation-project/item/1373-the-nakba-1947-1949

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention

20140715_091640

Pray for a Lack of “Proportionately” in Numbers. There will never be an Equivalence of Intent.

Posted on by
17

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

Opinion: Remove the Causefire before a Ceasefire

Posted on by
9

Egypt, one of two Israeli allies in the Arab world, has suggested a ceasefire in the current hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. US President Obama was encouraged about the development and said: “We are encouraged that Egypt has made a proposal to accomplish this goal that we hope can restore the calm that we are seeking.”

A ceasefire at this time would be a mistake.

Israel has already had two engagements in Gaza since it left the area in 2005: Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012. Both of those ceasefires failed to grant any long-term peace to Israeli citizens because they did not address the fundamental cause of the Hamas rocket fire.

Hamas wants Israel destroyed. All ceasefires that Hamas agrees to are simply hiatuses between battles.

There are two basic actions that must occur that world bodies can help facilitate that will ensure a long-term cessation of hostilities:

  1. the destruction of all missiles in Gaza;
  2. the dismantling of Hamas

Removing and Destroying all Missiles in Gaza

Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu and Acting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas spent much of the past year in a fruitless exercise of “Peace Negotiations” which had no chance of success. Much of the reason that talks were D.O.A. when they began, was because Abbas had no control (and still has no control) of Gaza. For Netanyahu, negotiating with a party who could not deliver the peace he sought was a fool’s errand – as the world witnessed.

All of the two-state peace negotiations over the years discussed a demilitarized Palestinian state. The action of removing all of the missiles now, would advance a major goal (and remove a major stumbling block) in moving towards a two-state solution. The removal itself would serve as the impetus for bringing the parties back to negotiations.

President Obama recently touted his accomplishment in ridding Syria of all chemical weapons in a peaceful manner. He said: “The fact that we didn’t have to fire a missile to get that accomplished is not a failure to uphold international norms, it’s a success.” Now would be the ideal time to follow that format and identify, remove and destroy all of the missiles in Gaza. It would save the people of Gaza and the soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces many casualties.

Dismantling Hamas

Hamas is not simply a political party. It is a rabidly anti-Semitic terrorist organization. It should not be allowed to exist in its current form under any circumstances. It cannot solely give up its weapons nor can it merely modify its charter. The entire entity is a cancer and must be dismantled.

The Hamas charter is beyond an obstacle to peace; it is an instrument of war. While former President Jimmy Carter may have tried to overlook a passing phrase of animosity towards Israel and Jews, the basic fact is that the founding document is an unambiguous call to kill Jews and to destroy the Jewish State again and again.

As echoed by its leaders, the essence of the Hamas philosophy is to kill Jews and destroy Israel. No peace will ever come between the Palestinians and Israel as long as the party exists. The time is now for all world bodies to effectively terminate this vile entity.

Sources:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/obama-welcomes-egypt-s/1264372.html

http://time.com/75043/obama-syria-chemical-weapons-removed/

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4300.htm

 

US Hypocrisy – “Reasonableness and Restraint”

Posted on by
12

Thirteen years ago, on 9/11/01, 2,977 innocent civilians were murdered in the United States by terrorists armed with nothing more than pilot licenses. Since that time, the US has deployed over 1 million troops and waged two wars in countries thousands of miles from its shores. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians were estimated to have been killed in the US-led war in Iraq, over 30 times the number of civilians killed on 9/11.

President Obama was critical of that war and pulled the US out of Iraq as he thought the US went to war with the wrong enemy. But when it came to Afghanistan, he engaged fully.

By the time Obama became president in 2009, an estimated 8,500 civilians had been killed in Afghanistan. Under his watch, from January 2009 until June 30, 2014, an additional 15,487 civilians were murdered, including 1,995 children. These totals were a fraction of the number of militants killed over those years.

Why has the Obama administration waged a war for so long? Why has it continued to fight – even though it knows of the terrible collateral damage – years after Osama bin Laden was killed?

The US continues to fight because the enemy still exists and intends to do harm.

President Obama was clear that the destruction of the terrorist infrastructure was one of the goals of his war. In November 2012 he said: “Thanks to sacrifice and service of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.”

Obama clearly articulated his war goals: to get the US out of a war which did not have an enemy threat; destroy the enemy (al Qaeda); and take revenge on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

However, Obama seemingly does not feel that such priorities relate to Israel. For him, the goal in the region is limited to one thing – stability (which is laughable considering the total instability of Syria, Iraq, Egypt…). Israel, in his mind, is strong enough to take a few murdered teenagers and qassam rockets. Israel’s stability is secondary to that of the region generally.

Witness Secretary of State John Kerry’s prepared remarks towards Israel after the murder of three Israeli teenagers coming home from school: “the perpetrators must be brought to justice. This is a time for all to work towards that goal without destabilizing the situation.”

Obama himself added: “At this dangerous moment, all parties must protect the innocent and act with reasonableness and restraint, not vengeance and retribution,”

America has been fighting with “vengeance and retribution” for 13 years (and counting), even when the collateral damage meant thousands of civilians murdered. Obama is actively seeking to defeat an enemy, even one thousands of miles away, that poses no existential threat to the USA.

So, how can Obama chide Israel, which has an enemy on its borders that is sworn to the country’s destruction, which fires missiles that can attack 80% of the population? How can he not understand Israel’s need to “decimate” its enemy?

The appropriate “reasonableness and restraint” may be limited to a polite response from the civilized world to Obama’s comment, while Israel actively engages Hamas and protects its citizens.

Sources:

http://www.unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/PoC-Civilian-Casualties-report-2007.pdf

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/Protection%20of%20Civilian%202009%20report%20English.pdf

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Documents/UNAMA%20POC%202011%20Report_Final_Feb%202012.pdf

http://unama.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=K0B5RL2XYcU%3D

http://www.unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=12254&ctl=Details&mid=15756&ItemID=37692&language=en-US

http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=12254&ctl=Details&mid=15756&ItemID=38134&language=en-US

Differentiating Hamas

Posted on by
11

It is with confusion that I watch the press try to present different sides of Hamas.  While the press may say that some Hamas members belong to the “political wing” and others the “military wing”, the simple fact is that Hamas is:

  1. a terrorist group;
  2. the most anti-Semitic ruling party in the world;
  3. a group of Holocaust deniers;
  4. committed to destroying ALL of Israel;
  5. the leading democratically elected party (winning 58% of the Palestinian parliament in their last election in 2006)

To put it another way, splicing Hamas is like differentiating between the Nazi Party, the SS and the Gestapo.  While there were differences in their roles, each was evil and guilty of genocide.

Do not kid yourselves. Hitler was democratically elected and a politician too.

Political music video on Hamas Theme Song (CSNY): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF2fcaSPB6M

Every Picture Tells a Story, the Bibi Monster

Posted on by
24

The “Every Picture” series highlights the power of photographs in the media and reviews the impact of size, color and placement of pictures along with their captions. The first installment reviewed how the New York Times painted a picture of Arab grief and suffering while portraying Israelis in a more aggressive and less sympathetic manner in a series of articles from June 30 to July 3 about the murder of three Israeli teens and a Palestinian teenager. If that article had a subtitle, it could have been “Palestinians trump Israelis”. You might think this second article in the series could be entitled: “Palestinians trump the World”, but the reality is much more subtle.

On July 7, 2014 the New York Times posted, on the top of its front page, a large color photograph of a Palestinian youth who was injured during riots against Israeli police. The bruised teenager was deemed to be a bigger story than victims of mass murders in other countries on a particularly violent day in Africa and the Middle East:

20140707_082918

On page A4, the paper posted a large black and white photograph and article about  20 people who had their throats slashed in Kenya;


On page A7, the NYT posted a black and white photograph of soldiers and militiamen in Uganda where 50 people were killed in a battle between security forces and a tribal militia;

On the bottom of that same page, a short article (with no associated picture) described how 35 to 40 people were killed in Yemen in a fight between “Shiite rebels and tribesmen associated with the government.”

20140707_08293720140707_08294820140707_083002
Pictures of mass murders buried in the NYT pages

While over 100 people were slaughtered in the region, the Times thought that a bruised youth was more significant than any and all of those atrocities. Could that have been because the teenager was a Palestinian Arab? That wouldn’t be logical as the Yemenis are Arab too. Could it be because the injured boy was a Muslim? That also would not make sense since al-Shabab is the Islamist terror group in Kenya that has been killing dozens of people every week, and both parties in the slaughter in Yemen are Muslim.

The difference in the dynamic of these stories lies in the counter-party – Israel – as evidenced by the other pictures in the news story. In a small picture on the (extreme right) side of the cover page, and then again in a color photograph on page A5, are close up pictures of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu. Netanyahu is possibly the only world leader who is more despised by the NYT editorial board than former US President George W. Bush. The Times often uses pictures of Netanyahu alongside stories of Israeli aggression. It does this uniquely and consistently for Bibi.

By means of comparison, imagine an article about US drones killing civilians in Afghanistan, and then a picture alongside of it of US President Barack Obama. It doesn’t happen in the NYT or liberal media outlets. You probably wouldn’t even see a picture of injured people or mourning mothers in US papers. That is because they do not want to sketch a killer in Obama’s image.

As examples, here are two NYT articles that are critical of US policy of drone attacks – but include no pictures (let alone two!) of Obama. These are attacks that Obama ordered, (compared to a general situation in Israel which Netanyahu was not directly involved). Needless to say, the articles that simply report on the use of drones have no pictures of the US Commander-in-Chief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/world/asia/civilian-deaths-in-drone-strikes-cited-in-report.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/world/use-of-drones-for-killings-risks-a-war-without-end-panel-concludes-in-report.html

In another article that is completely about Obama’s war on terrorism, the picture puts Obama so far in the background you would think he was accidentally caught in the photo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all

However, the New York Times and various liberal publications like to paint Bibi and Israel as attackers. They use his image alongside articles which describe attacks and counter-attacks. He has been made into a caricature of war; a cartoon of a blood libel.

Every picture tells a story. It is time to ask what the artist had in mind.

The Subtle Discoloration of History: Shuafat

Posted on by
9

Reader’s often assume that the more reputable news organization do research and perform fact-checks before posting articles. However, they do not often consider the word choices or juxtapositions of those facts relayed in a story. The truths and half-truths can combine to distort reality. This becomes exacerbated when quotes from biased witnesses are included in the article.

Witness the July 6, 2014 New York Times article on page 8 describing the terrible abduction and murder of an Arab teenager as a case in point. The second paragraph of the story: “…Mohammed was at the recreation center named for his respected, expansive Palestinian family in the ancient section of the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat.” I will avoid commenting on the “respected” background of the Abu Khdeir family who “started farming [in Israel] 250 years ago” as I do not know them (and why should I doubt Jodi Rudoren?). Consider the proximity in one sentence of the words “Palestinian”, “ancient”, “East Jerusalem” and “Shuafat”. A reader could naturally conclude that Palestinian Arabs have long been living in the ancient Palestinian city of East Jerusalem. A quote from a member of the family in the article adds that “All Shuafat is in danger, all the settlers are around us. It’s like a monster – they want to eat us.” could lead a reader to conclude that Jews are recent “settlers” to the area and harass Arabs.

All of those conclusions would be false.

Shuafat is indeed thought to be an ancient site. Archeological excavations reveal Roman encampments and Jewish homes and mikvahs from 2000 years ago. However, neither Shuafat, nor the rest of Israel, have ancient Arab finds as Arabs did not come to the region en masse until the Muslim invasion in the 7th century.

Shuafat remained a small village until 1967 when Jordan (together with Palestinian Arabs who were granted Jordanian citizenship) attacked Israel in the Six Day War. Israel took control of the “West Bank” and extended the boundaries of Jerusalem to include Shuafat and other villages around the city. In 1980, Israel declared all of Jerusalem to be its united capital.

For parties that do not recognize Israel’s annexation of the eastern part of Jerusalem, it would logically extend that those same people would not recognize Israel’s extension of Jerusalem’s boundaries. Shuafat is either a neighborhood in Jerusalem, Israel (if one accepts Israel’s position) OR it is a village in the West Bank (if one doesn’t).

Regarding the comment of “[Jewish] settlers”- there are many more new Muslims that moved to Jerusalem than there are new Jewish residents. Since 1967, when Israel reunified the city, until 2012, the Jewish population grew by 2.6 times while the Arab population grew by 4.4 times. This huge difference comes despite the higher (4.3) birth rate for Jewish women in Jerusalem than for Arab women (3.6).

Lastly, Shuafat and “East Jerusalem” are integral parts of Jerusalem. Just below 40% of the eastern part of Jerusalem which was annexed in 1967 is Jewish. Arabs and Jews work and live together in the city (compared to some Israeli cities like Umm al-Fahm that are 99% Arab). Shuafat sits just south of the second largest neighborhood in Jerusalem, Pisgat Ze’ev (pop. 37,000). The new Jerusalem light rail line includes two stops in Shuafat, one of the only neighborhoods with two stops.

A fact-checked sentence should have read:

“…in the ancient Jewish section of the predominantly Arab East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat in Jerusalem…”.

Just saying…

“East Jerusalem” – the 0.5% Molehill

Posted on by
26

The Middle East is not short on drama. Things in the region are magnified by perfect faith and distorted by perceived foresight. The people in the land are The People of The Land. Their collective perspective has long ago been blurred by reading texts about ethereal matters too closely.

To wit, Arabs have stated a quest for a new country with a capital city they call “East Jerusalem”. The small matter that seems to escape them is that it doesn’t exist.

Jerusalem was founded 4000 years ago. In the city’s turbulent history, it reached religious heights and was vanquished many times. Still, in all but 19 of those 4000 years, it remained a single united city.

In 1947, the United Nations considered expanding the borders of the city and put forth a plan to create a “Holy Basin” which was to include Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem. The proposed entity would have housed the significant religious sites of the three monotheistic religions and been under international control. The Arabs rejected the proposal and five Arab armies attacked the new State of Israel in 1948 with the stated objective of destroying the country completely.

At the end of that war, the Jordanians seized and unilaterally annexed the eastern part of the Jerusalem and renamed it “East Jerusalem”. The joyful Jordanians gave the Palestinian Arabs Jordanian citizenship, but evicted all Jews from their “East Jerusalem”.

So the spiritual center of Judaism was stolen by the Jordanians. From 1949 to 1967, (0.5% of the city’s existence), the Jordanians banned Jews from the eastern part of Jerusalem.

In 1967, the Jordanians (which included Arabs from Palestine who were granted Jordanian citizenship) attacked Israel again, and lost the eastern half of the city. Israel dismantled the barbed wire that split the city and reunited Jerusalem. “East Jerusalem” existed no more.

In 1995, in an effort to establish peace in the region, Israel handed control of Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority, thereby giving half of the “Holy Basin” to the Arabs.  The “Holy Basin” sat divided, but not Jerusalem.

Remarkably, despite the short dark blip in history 46 years ago, and current control of Bethlehem, the Arabs contend that East Jerusalem still exists and always existed. Should it surprise anyone that when it comes to Jerusalem, people would try to turn a 0.5% molehill into owning the Temple Mount?

The history of united + divided Jerusalem

The history of united + divided Jerusalem

Every Picture Tells a Story, Don’t It?

Posted on by
24

The media – whether print or digital – are experts at what they do. They know what articles make people react. They know what motivates people to buy their newspapers and watch their news programs. They know how to drive tweets and retweets.

I therefore observe and review how they craft their craft; how they shape the stories they sell.

Photographs – even in papers that art the printed word – are the most engaging. They are no longer limited to tiny and grainy black & whites of decades ago; they are now displayed in vivid colors that convey a story and an emotion. The choice of which pictures to present, as well as the how and where, essentially prioritizes the news for the reader. For example, a color photograph on the top of the front page with an associated article in the far right column is the most news-worthy story of the day. If a photograph is small and in black & white in the back of the paper, alongside advertisements and other news stories, it would transmit the passing interest in the event.

With such understanding, I reviewed the New York Times coverage of the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teenagers, and the killing of Arab children in the subsequent days.

 

On June 30, the NYT ran a cover story on the bottom of the page, including two color photographs, about two mothers of victims – one Arab woman from the West Bank and another Jewish woman. The caption stated that the Arab woman’s son was “killed by Israeli soldiers” (one would need to read the article to learn that he was pelting the soldiers with rocks and bricks). The caption added that the Jewish woman’s son was “missing”. The article continued on page A9, with black and white pictures of equal size showing each woman together with friends praying. The captions again repeated that the Arab boy “was killed by Israeli soldiers”, and that the Jewish boy “was abducted” with other boys.

On July 1, the NYT ran a cover story that the Israeli teens were found dead. The story ran on the left hand (secondary) column of the front page and had no picture. The paper did, however, include several color photographs in the middle of the paper, on page A8, of a prayer vigil, pictures of the three boys, and army jeeps near the discovery site of the boys. The caption reads that their bodies “were found”.

On July 2, the NYT did not have any cover stories about the killings of the Israeli boys. On page A4, it posted some black and white photographs of friends mourning at the gravesite of one of the murdered teenagers. The caption read that the boys were “found dead”. The associated article ran from page A4 and continued on page A20.

On July 3, the NYT posted a large color photograph on the top of the page of Arab women mourning and an associated right-hand column about the killing of an Arab boy (the trifecta – large color photo on top of page 1 and associated right-hand article). The caption said her “son Mohammed was found dead” included a quote from the mother of the dead boy “We don’t feel safe”. The cover article continued on page A8 with three additional color photographs of: Palestinian men clashing with Israeli police; Israeli police searching the crime scene; and the dead boy. The captions state that there was a “kidnapping and killing of a Palestinian teenager”.

Over these four days, if one were to just get news from pictures and their captions, what would a reader take away?

From the captions, it would appear that everything that happened to the three Jewish teenagers was passive. The boys were “missing” and their bodies “were found”. There was no mention of kidnapping or killing, nor any attribution of who was the aggressor.

Contrast that to the captions of the Arab boys who were “killed by Israeli soldiers” and another that stated there was a “kidnapping and killing of a Palestinian teenager”. The aggression described against the Arab victims was underscored by the cover article quote from an Arab woman that “We don’t feel safe”. Pictures and captions showed Israeli soldiers and police, but shared no sentiment of the Jewish women.

Further, the large color pictures on the top of the page with the Arab women mourning was the only time that the NYT gave the stories in the region prominence. The only time we saw a cover picture (on the bottom of page) related to the Jewish victims was when one of the mothers appeared alongside a grieving Arab woman in a story meant to convey balance in grief. In fact, the underlying message was not balance: the pictures and captions made clear that the Arab woman was a victim of Israeli aggression trying to find missing teens, while the Jewish woman still had hope that her “missing” son (not kidnapped) would reappear.

What does the NYT positioning of greater emphasis on Arab suffering convey to a reader? How do the pictures of Israeli soldiers in armored vehicles and border police with machine guns compare with Palestinians throwing rocks? Were the pictures and captions deliberately shaping a larger story than the immediate events?

Were people more likely to buy the paper or talk about it with friends? Does the Times believe that more readers sympathize with Arabs than Israelis? Does the NYT editorial board believe that Israelis are the aggressors and Palestinians the victims, even when this entire episode began with the abduction and murder of three Jewish teenagers on their way home from school?

June 30. cover June 30. A9 July 1. cover July 1. A8 July 2. cover July 2. A4 July 3. cover July 3. A8What do you think?