New Scapegoat for Terror in Europe is the Old Scapegoat--Guess Who?

Europe is still in a state of shock after the horrific murders of innocent, unarmed people--mostly young people--in Paris. The latest figures are 129 dead and hundreds wounded. As of today, the French police have conducted an operation in St Denis, a Parisian suburb. Two terrorists are dead and some people have been taken into custody. The police suffered casualties.

ISIS took responsibility for the attack and, according to media reports, the terrorists were in contact with their operatives in Syria. European security officers were even sure for a while that the key terrorist who planned the coordinated attacks had already escaped to Syria.

But to where, pray tell, has 'enlightened' Europe shifted the blame? You guessed it, the Israel-Palestinian conflict. There is only flimsy evidence, if any hard evidence at all, to any Palestinian connection.

ISIS itself has attributed their terrorist attack in Paris to French bombings in Syria:

Let France and those who walk in its path know that they will remain on the top of the list of targets of the Islamic State, and that the smell of death will never leave their noses as long as they lead the convoy of the Crusader campaign, and dare to curse our Prophet, Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and are proud of fighting Islam in France and striking the Muslims in the land of the Caliphate with their planes, which did not help them at all in the streets of Paris and its rotten alleys. This attack is the first of the storm and a warning to those who wish to learn.

Read the whole ISIS statement here. Not one word by ISIS about Palestine.

I saw one unsubstantiated report that said that a Palestinian might have been one of the eight or nine attackers. The fluid migration of Islamic terrorists from one Islamic conflict to another, however, makes this flimsy and almost inconsequential evidence of any 'Palestinian' connection, even if true.

But, never fear, the official elite already has the answer: look for the Jewish connection.

Why do I call them the 'official' elite? Because they hold (or have held) official positions, either appointed or elected. As such, they have easy access to mass media, and their voice carries influence and molds public opinion. This is what makes this elite so pernicious and dangerous. They are deflecting the consequences of their own failures and misguided worldview onto the State of Israel, the only state in the world where Jews can actually defend themselves by force of arms. They would deprive us of this, too.

In the present crisis, the first to come forth with the convenient 'answer' was the Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallstrom, already well-known for her antipathy toward Israel. When asked on Swedish Television whether she was worried are by radicalization Sweden youth who are fighting for ISIS, she made the convenient 'connection' between radical Swedish youth and the Palestinian situation. Wallstroem said:

Obviously, we have reason to be worried, not just in Sweden but across the world, because there are so many that are being radicalized. Here, once again, we are brought back to situations like the one in the Middle East, where not least, the Palestinians see that there isn’t a future. We [The Palestinians] must either accept a desperate situation or resort to violence.

To the Israeli Foreign Ministry's credit, it was quick to protest, inviting the Swedish ambassador for clarifications and elicited a statement from the Swedes that no connection had been made between the two situations.

Next to dutifully follow is the chairman of the Dutch Socialist Party, Jan Marijnissen. He said the perpetrators of the attacks in Paris acted in part over frustration over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He was interviewed on the Dutch radio station NPO Radio1 on Monday, November 16. The following is a summary of what he said:

Their [The terrorists'] behavior eventually is connected also to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” said Marijnissen about the perpetrators. “The guys – I assume they were guys – who carried out the attacks probably come from a group of outraged people from the French suburbs,” he said. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he added, “is the growth medium for such an attack.

In days gone by, Christian Europe had the Jew as a convenient scapegoat for random unexplained murders, child molestation, poverty, war, economic crises, natural disasters and whatever other problems needed a quick fix. Rabble rousing officials, royal or otherwise, could set the crowd on the Jews to expend their rage and blood lust in murder, robbery and expulsion of Jews.

European Jewish Congress (EJC) President Moshe Kantor called Wallstrom's remarks 'borderline racist'.  Dr. Kantor said:

She [Wallstrom] has completely ignored the remarks made by those behind the attacks, Islamic State organization, almost as if depriving them of any agency for their reactions. This is a deeply troubling worldview and borderline racist. 

She ignores the tens of conflicts around the world involving Muslims and cherry-picks the only conflict involving Jews, as if to once again suggest, perhaps not consciously, the age old idea that the Jews are always central to international affairs in a malevolent way, and behind every event the hand of Jews can be found.

Implicit in the words of Wallstrom and Marijnissen is that Jewish Israel bears responsibility for the terrorist bloodbath in Paris. By extension, there is even justification to the continued attacks--stabbings, car bombs, shootings, and driving cars into crowds of Jews--on innocent Jews in Israel, for if such is the consequence in Europe what would be the result in Palestine itself!

Thus, a new scapegoat has been discovered to account for the woes of Europe. Not so remarkably, the new scapegoat looks much like the old one.
 

Much Ado about Nothing Becomes Something Big--Halloween at Yale and More

In the run-up to Halloween this year at Yale University, one of the oldest and greatest of American universities, a really diverse spectrum of university administrators-- Muslim, Jew, Native American, Hispanic, Black, LGBT, among others--decided to issue guidelines to the student body on dressing up for the holiday The guidelines' apparent idea was to caution students not to use stereotypical costumes that could possibly offend others, such as feathers that might offend American Indians. In response to complaints by some students about what seemed to be heavy-handed guidelines, one Yale residential college live-in professor and his wife--both of whom teach at the university--sent an email to the students wondering whether there should actually be university guidelines for a fun holiday such as Halloween and whether guidelines don't suppress individual creativity at a university that's supposed to promote creativity and individuality.

I read both documents. Both positions were articulate and, in my judgment, certainly well within the scope of legitimate discourse.

But what happened next was the morphing of the 'guidelines' into an outdoor confrontation on the college mall between a pro-guidelines student and the professor, with the 'debate' deteriorating into the student screaming at the professor, cursing him using four-letter words, calling for his resignation, and stomping off in a great rage. Later, a petition with several hundred student signatures was submitted backing up the call to fire the pair (the professor and his wife).

I understand now that the innocuous so-called guidelines were in fact taken by some students to be an ideological statement, virtual dogma issued and distributed as rules to which other students were expected to abide. Non-compliance or contradictory opinion, according to these students, should be publicly flamed and the violator subject to consequences (as indeed were the professor and his wife). I believe that the future of the pair at the university is still in limbo. Let's remember that President Larry Summers of Harvard resigned after he made an inadvertent 'sexist' statement and President Time Wolfe of the University of Missouri resigned as well as the Chancellor over what seemed to be an inadequate response to a racial issue. Interviewed on Fox news, Harvard Professor emeritus Dershowitz noted that university administrators are afraid to confront students and speak out against student hypocrisy, double standards and blatant antisemitism, even at the City College of New York, where there are a large number of Jews.

So, has political correctness (PC), as defined by a vocal minority, become the new ideology on campus, and can PC impose its opinions on others in the name of ... well, PC? Can PC stifle free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas? Does PC supersede freedom of speech?

This is a big issue. If I cannot express my ideas freely in a university environment and have to worry about whether I may lose my job, that is a big issue. If I cannot debate someone at university (say, on the Palestinian issue) without worrying about whether I am going to be intimidated or beaten up (because 'Palestine-ism' has become PC), that is a big issue. And if PC has morphed into an ideology that stifles discussion and suppresses opposition views, then aren't we sanctioning the suppression of free speech on campus, where once it was sacrosanct? Has the university, at the behest of its students, become the enforcer of conformism of ideas where individuality once reigned supreme?

Let's take a step backward for a minute. Some years back, Prince Harry of England went to a costume party wearing a Nazi uniform, causing a tiff in the media; he subsequently apologized, and it was soon forgotten. It was a mere faux pas of a twenty-year-old kid who didn't know any better (though as a public person he should have had better advice). Was I offended back then. Not really. Would I, as a Jew, be offended if I came to a costume party and found someone dressed up as a Nazi. Perhaps, or perhaps not. I think I could manage it, After all, it's a costume party and that's what people do at costume parties. On the Jewish holiday of Purim, it is permissible for men to dress up as women even though LGBT is anathema to religious Jews. It's all a matter of proportion and context.

What should have been a simple Halloween celebration became a very big issue on campus and has revealed, for all to see, administrators refusing to lead on matters of principle and deferring to a vocal, ideologically rigid minority. Of course, the canary in the mine has been showing signs of distress for several years now. The manner in which arrogant, intimidating and, yes, violent pro-Palestinian discourse has taken over the American campuses, sometimes led by individuals who are not even students, should have been obvious to all except those who chose not to use their eyes to see.

Terror is Terror - Whether in France or in Israel

Prime Minister Netanyahu said today at his cabinet meeting that:

In Israel, like in France, terrorism is terrorism. It is time that the world wakes up and unites to defeat terrorism. The time has come for the nations of the world to condemn terrorism against us as much as they condemn terrorism anywhere else in the world.

Unfortunately, France and Europe don't exactly see it that way. Somehow, the situation in Israel has always been considered to be different, a 'special' case. The wake-up call is loudly ringing. but I wonder if anyone in Europe (or the US) is listening.

Bassam Tawil, a Palestinian scholar based in the Middle East, has succinctly said it:

• By constantly endorsing pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli policies, France has obviously been seeking to appease Islamic countries. France seems convinced that such policies will keep Muslim terrorists from targeting French nationals and interests. The French are now in grave danger of mistakenly believing that the November 13 attacks occurred because France did not appease the Muslim terrorists enough.
• When the terrorists see that pressure works -- increasing the pressure should work even more!
• The French and Europeans would do well to understand that there is no difference between a young Palestinian who takes a knife and sets out to murder Jews, and an Islamic State terrorist who murders dozens of innocent people in Paris.
• The reason Muslim extremists want to destroy Israel is not because of the settlements or checkpoints it is because they believe that Jews have no right to be in the Middle East whatsoever. And they want to destroy Europe because they believe that Christians -- and everyone -- have no right to be anything other than Muslim.
• The terrorists attacking Jews also seek to destroy France, Germany, Britain and, of course, the United States. These countries need to be reminded that the Islamist terrorists' ultimate goal is to force all non-Muslims to submit to Islam or face death.

Bassam Tawil concludes:

The French and Europeans would do well to understand that there is no difference between a young Palestinian who takes a knife and sets out to murder Jews, and an Islamic State terrorist who murders dozens of innocent people in Paris. Once the French and other Europeans understand this reality, it will be far easier for them to engage in the battle against Islamic terrorism.

Read the whole article here. 

Has the Time Come for the French Foreign Legion to Go to War?

We all were shocked today by Islamic State's synchronized attack in multiple Parisian locations on innocent civilians. About 130 are dead and another approximately 100 are severely wounded. The body count is likely to go up. It's a little too early to know the precise identities of the attackers and what their support infrastructure was. There is already at least one arrest in Germany.

Yes, it will be interesting to know the specific details of the terrorists, but the wake up call should already have rung loud and clear. ISIS has been quick to take the credit, as they did for blowing up the Russian airliner leaving from Sharm el-Sheikh killing 224.

The American rag-tag coalition fighting ISIS has been mostly confined to air strikes. Russia and Turkey also have attacked ISIS but have their own agendas: Turkey prefers to attack and kill the Kurds; Russia, which now has its own base in Syria, attacks anti-Assad groups in general (but is happy to kill Chechnya terrorists, who comprise about 25% of the ISIS fighting force).

But, rag tag or not, the coalition operations are beginning to show results on ISIS. Additional pressure is also now being applied on ISIS by a combined Russia-Iran-Hezbollah axis in support of Syria's Alawite government headed by Assad. Thus, ISIS has been suffering defeats and loss of territory lately: the Kurds have reconquered Sinjar, ISIS missed an opportunity to seize the big arms cache at as-Safira near Aleppo (by the time ISIS broke in, most of the arms had been removed), their supply line between Mosul and their capital at al-Raqqah is threatened, and their symbol, John the Jihadist, has been killed.

But ISIS in Syria and Iraq is still a formidable fighting force. The real problem with moving the offensive against ISIS into high gear is that no major power is willing to put boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. Foreign soldiers are still considered 'advisers'.

This is where the elite French Foreign Legion (FFL) can contribute; its soldiers come from over 140 different countries and are highly trained. In recent years, they fought with distinction in Iraq in Operation Desert Storm (1991), and since 2001 have fought terror in Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Mali, and Chad.

But make no mistake. Defeating ISIS is only part of a much greater war against worldwide Islamic terrorism. ISIS is Islamic Sunni terrorism. The West is yet to confront the greater threat of Islamic Shiite terrorism as exemplified by Iran (the recent Iran nuclear deal shows that the US and Europe are still in denial and may be confronted by a nuclear-armed terrorist state in the not-distant future). And there are other Islamic terrorist entities and movements that have to be confronted: Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood), Lebanon (Hezbollah), Russia (Chechnya), North Africa, Nigeria (Boko Haram) and (unfortunately) the list goes on. Yes, just as there are many different types of cancer that metastasize, so too with Islamic terrorism.

Why this Bloody Palestinian Stabbing Intifada?

For the past few weeks, dozens of innocent Israelis living their daily humdrum lives have become victims to surprise knife attacks by Palestinians. Usually the attacker whips out a sharp butcher knife and aims for the jugular of his or her (there are also female stabbers too) in an attempt to sever this important vein so that the victim bleeds to death. Sometimes, they aim for the back, which is a larger and easier target, since the victim is looking the other way, or the stomach, if facing the victim. Palestinians have been circulating anatomical diagrams of the 'best' anatomical places to insert a knife.

 

Israeli security has classified these attackers as 'lone wolves,' persons not hitherto known as a security risk and not associated with one of the militant Palestinian organizations or having any support infrastructure. What had originally been assumed to be a temporary spate of attacks has now turned into a wave of dozens of attacks not only in the 'occupied' territories but also in major cities of Israel. The Israeli victims have been not only soldiers but also civilian women and children on the streets of Israel. A couple of days ago a Palestinian stabbed an 80-year-old woman. How could this frail old woman have been conceived to have been an epitome of the occupation in this deranged attacker's mind?

In the last few days. the attacks seem to be tapering off, but there are still stabbings and attacks with other weapons (such as cars), and there is a continued risk of the wave turning into a tsunami. It is valid to ask, why has this stabbing intifada occurred?

 

On the Palestinian side, there are a myriad of explanations: the occupation, frustration, rage, no hope, defiling Al-Aqsa mosque, Israel's changing the status quo in the Al-Aqsa compound. But we have heard all this before, and all these charges existed even before the current intifada. So what is different?

 

On the Israeli side, most frequently cited is the virulent anti-Israel propaganda generated by all the Palestinian media as well as the consistent lies, which can be loosely grouped under the term 'incitement.' Most prominent recent lie is that of the Palestinian Authority President Abbas accusing the Israelis of killing a terrorist Palestinian 13-year-old boy who knifed an Israeli boy riding on his bicycle. The next day, Israeli media showed the Palestinian terrorist boy in hospital recuperating from his wounds. Of course. there were no apologies nor any corrections forthcoming from the Palestinian side, although they did find it necessary to doctor the English transcript of Abbas' speech, which was distributed to the English-speaking media. But the truth got out; the Palestinians couldn't fake the audio recording. But the Palestinians have been lying for years, even before the current intifada.  So what is different?

 

If we look at the ages of these 'lone-wolf' attackers, we see that they are rather young, generally in their teens or early twenties (some have been older, of course). The youngest was thirteen-years-old, and he was accompanied by his 15-year-old cousin, who killed and was killed ny Israeli security. In other words, this is the Palestinian generation that was educated within the Palestinian educational system after the Oslo Accords beginning in 1993. Brought up on a full syllabus of hatred, military kindergartens and martial youth movements, jihad, Islamic martyr (shahid) glorification, perverted history, all of which has been incessantly pumped into them and reinforced year-after-year; the result should be no surprise. What this young generation has 'learned' in the Palestinian educational system has been exchanged among themselves in the social media and exacerbated by Palestine Authority and Islamic incitement in the media, mosques and other institutions. So, it should be no surprise that these 'lone wolves' had no obvious connection with the traditional militant and terror organizations.

Palestinian Media Watch director Itamar Marcus presented his organization’s report on Palestinian Authority education to the Israeli Knesset a few days ago. The following is the the Jerusalem Post's summary from the Knesset discussion:

The report documents that in formal and informal educational frameworks, killers of Israelis are portrayed as heroes and role models, and that children are taught that Israel will eventually be replaced by “Palestine.”

At least 25 Palestinian Authority schools are named after terrorists; three are named after Dalal Mughrabi, who led the most lethal terrorist attack in Israeli history in 1978, killing 37 civilians, 12 of them children.

Marcus showed the MKs (Members of Knesset) a film from PA television, in which a student expressed pride “to attend the Dalal Mughrabi School, which bears this pioneering name,” and another student said her “life’s ambition is to reach the level that the martyr fighter Dalal Mughrabi reached.”

Another clip from televised news in the PA showed a boy saying he learned in school to “fight the Jews, kill them and defeat them,” and another told children that Jews are “Satan with a tail.”

The report also contains chapters on incitement in Palestinian textbooks, educational materials glorifying Hitler, and the PA policy of blocking joint peace-building activities between Palestinian and Israeli children.

Marcus explained that the messages Palestinian children are receiving are nationalist – that Israel is not legitimate on any borders and its existence since 1948 is an occupation – and anti-Semitic – that Jews are evil by nature, descendants of monkeys and pigs, and fated to be killed by Muslims.

Does anyone now think that there could be any hope for peace with this young  Palestinian generation? Would any of these young Palestinians honor a peace agreement signed by the octogenarian leader the Palestine Authority?

Saudi Arabia and Israel Move Closer Together

Billionaire Saudi prince al-Waleed bin Talal: will side with Israel if there is a new Palestinian uprising; Saudi Arabia has reached political maturity and can make a durable alliance with the Jewish nation

Poll: 24% of Saudi people see Israel as an ally against Iran

 

The Saudi strategic position has become tenuous in the last couple of years. The Iranian Nuclear deal has been signed paving the way for Iran as a nuclear power; the Saudis are involved in a military coalition in support of the legitimate Sunni Yemeni government against Shi'ite Houthi rebels; and the US is fast becoming self-sufficient in energy, and less inclined to put boots on the ground for Saudia Arabia. Thus, Saudi Arabia has been casting around for allies in what promises to be a long and drawn-out strategic and tactical battle against nuclear-ambitious Iran's push for Middle East domination. This week there were some noteworthy developments.

According to Kuwaiti Al Qabas Arabic daily, October 27, Saudi Prince and entrepreneur, al-Waleed bin Talal, has stated that his country must reconsider its regional commitments and devise a new strategy to combat Iran's increasing influence in the Gulf States.  Prince  al-Waleed bin Talal believes that Riyadh and Tel Aviv should form a defense pact to deter possible Iranian moves considering developments in Syria and Moscow's military intervention.

The Kuwaiti News Agency (KUNA) quoted the Saudi Prince:

The whole Middle-East dispute is tantamount to a matter of life and death for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from my vantage point, and I know that  the Iranians seek to unseat the Saudi regime by playing the Palestinian card. Hence, to foil their plots Saudi Arabia and Israel must bolster their relations and form a united front to stymie Tehran's ambitious agenda.

The Prince added that Riyadh and Tel Aviv must achieve a modus vivendi, because Saudi policy in regard to the Arab-Israeli crisis is no longer tenable. The Prince continued that Iran seeks to buttress its presence in the Mediterranean by supporting the Assad regime in Syria,  and to the chagrin of Riyadh and its sister Gulf sheikdoms, Putin's Russia has become a real co-belligerent force in the Syrian 4-year-old civil war by attacking CIA-trained rebels.

Thus, it is of paramount importance that a Saudi-Israeli nexus frustrate the developing Russia-Iran-Hezbollah axis. The Prince said:

I will side with the Jewish nation and its democratic aspirations in case of outbreak of a Palestinian Intifada (uprising) and  I shall exert all my influence to break any ominous Arab initiatives set to condemn Tel Aviv, because I deem the Arab-Israeli entente and future friendship necessary to impede the Iranian dangerous encroachment.

It is very significant that the Prince is talking about siding with the Jewish nation not some amorphous 'Israeli political entity.' The Prince also stated that Iranian influence in Bahrain, which has a US Sixth Fleet base, affects Saudi vital interests and is worrying.

The interview with the Prince was not the only good news for Israel. A new survey reveals rarely seen aspects of public political opinion inside Saudi Arabia.

The Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) at IDC Herzliya and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee conducted a random poll in Arabic in Saudi Arabia from the end of May and into June. It was controlled for gender, cell phone/land line numbers and urban/rural areas. The poll and its results achieved extensive media coverage in leading media organizations around the world and in Israel, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, ABC News, Channel 2 News and others.  

Among the key findings:

• Only 18.4% of Saudis consider Israel as the biggest threat to Saudi Arabia
• 23.7% believe Saudi Arabia should fight Iran alongside Israel.

 Other findings were:

• 85.5% support the Saudi-Arab Peace Initiative
• 53% of those polled believe Iran is the biggest threat to Saudi Arabia; ISIS polled second at 22.1%; as mentioned, only 18.4% of Saudis consider Israel to be Saudi Arabia's biggest threat
• 52.6% believe Saudi Arabia needs to acquire a nuclear weapon if Iran does
• 70.9% believe Iran is a threat to Saudi sovereignty

Growing common interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Emirates increase the possibility of forcing the Palestinians to the negotiation table and their finally recognizing Israel as a Jewish state and making an agreement that will include ending the conflict and renouncing all their claims against Israel.

What is Sweden Coming To?

Sweden's anti-Israel attitude shows the same misguided mindset and blinker vision as its attitude toward its own domestic racism.

When I was in Sweden many years ago it was delightful. The people were wonderful. I thought that I had stumbled into paradise. I was just another disheveled trekker back then. I had all my possessions in a backpack, I was a little dirty and could not shower regularly. But people in suits patiently stopped to give me directions; people smiled at me and were polite.

But I don't think that I would like living in Sweden nowadays.

Ingrid Carlqvist informs us that in Sweden racist acts are considered racism only if the victims are not white.

On Thursday, October 22, Sweden was shocked by yet another act of madness apparently connected to multiculturalism. Anton Lundin Pettersson, 21, dressed in a black coat and Darth Vader helmet, and armed with a sword and a knife, entered the Kronan school in Trollhättan and started killing. By the time the police shot him down, he had killed one person and wounded three others severely. One of the wounded later died in the hospital.

The newscasts and television debates were devoted to the attack and focused on the racist motive. Ingrid Carlqvist continues:

In many respects, the attack [at the Kronan school] was similar to the one in the Västerås IKEA on August 10 -- random people killed because of the color of their skin. In IKEA, whites were killed by a black assailant; at the school, blacks were killed by a white assailant.The reaction, however, was completely different.

After IKEA, there was dead silence. But this school attack is all over the news. A white perpetrator killing black victims is apparently considered far worse than a black perpetrator killing white victims.

Ingrid Carlqvist notes that after the double murders at IKEA, there were no such discussions about racist motivation. No one condemned the racist motive of the IKEA murderer, Abraham Ukbagabir, who, when questioned by the police, said that he had chosen his victims because they "looked Swedish."

Carlqvist says that Sweden's Prime Minister Löfven condemns all violence from Swedes but ignores violence perpetrated by immigrants such as the burning of six housing facilities for asylum seekers.

Sweden's anti-Israel attitude is manifest and shows the same misguided mindset and blinker vision as its attitude toward its own domestic racism.

The Swedish government, which was the first European state to recognize officially the Palestinian state, has not issued a condemnation of Palestinian attacks on Israelis in the current terrorism wave. Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Margot Wallstrom has talked about violence on both sides in general terms. Her comments were neutral and vague, not mentioning who perpetrated the terror attacks. This attitude is reminiscent of the way that the Swedish Government is handling internal racial violence (as described above).

Additionally, Scandinavian Airlines, the national airline, initially announced that it will no longer be flying to Israel due to poor profits and "political(!) instability in the region". The airlines have since backtracked since there was push-back from Israel.

Israeli representatives in Sweden have observed that there is currently an anti-Israel consensus in the country and that politicians are not publicly willing to defend Israel. It seems that Swedish silence is due partly to political motives: The Swedes are interested in obtaining UN Security Council seat, so they are avoiding angering Arab nations by condemning Palestinian terrorism. This diplomatic consideration alone, however, is not sufficient to explain the widespread anti-Israel attitude throughout Swedish society and Swedish institutions.

Ongoing anti-Israel coverage in Swedish media ignores Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. In the Swedish media, these attacks are at most perpetrated by "Palestinian militants," not terrorists acting against unarmed, innocent civilians (even if we disregard, for the sake of argument, attacks on soldiers). Thus, in the beginning of October, the Swedish news agency TT reported the stabbing murder of Nahmia Lavi and Aharon Bennett as "Palestinian shot in Jerusalem." The Palestinian in question was 19-year-old terrorist Mohand Halabi, who had killed the two people.

An anti-Semitic Swedish film, The Dead Still Have a Name, produced by a Swedish organization that organizes flotillas to Gaza, draws comparisons between Israel's actions toward Palestinians and the Holocaust. The city of Gothenburg has decided to include this politically-motivated film as part of its school curriculum. So far, it has not been broadcast on television but only screened privately.

Finally, the Swedish church systematically works against Israel. The church's Swedish Theological Institute operates in Jerusalem, but instead of dealing with relations between Judaism and Christianity – as its mission statement dictates – it is increasingly becoming involved in politics and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The institute hosts Swedish anti-Israel activists, who come to the Palestinian territories to report on cases of so-called Palestinian abuse.

Remembering Yitzhak Rabin (1922-1995)

October 26, 2015 marks the twentieth anniversary of the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a lone Jewish assassin.

I first encountered Yitzhak Rabin when I was a student at the University of Minnesota, which had an enrollment of over 40,000 students and was the biggest single campus in the USA at the time. Yitzhak Rabin served as Israel's ambassador to the United States from 1968–1973, during years that I was living in Minneapolis. Although I was not sufficiently well-versed in Israeli politics to know this, it was clear that the ambassadorship was a high-profile perk that was awarded to Rabin, a successful general and rising star in the dominant Israeli Labor Party. Rabin viewed the ambassadorship as a stepping stone to something bigger (as do all successful Israeli generals who go into politics), and Rabin would go on to lead his Labor Party to victory in the 1973 elections and become Prime Minister of Israel (1973-1977). In 1992, he again led the Labor Party to victory and served as Prime Minister till he was shot and killed in 1995.

Traditionally, one of the functions of an ambassador was touring American college campuses, expounding official Israeli policy, with the intention, of course, of increasing support for the State of Israel and inspiring pride within the American-Jewish community. When Rabin arrived at the University of Minnesota, he still had the glow, for proud Jews like me, of a successful and charismatic leader. For someone brought up on the eloquence of Abba Eban (1915-2002), Israeli ambassador to the US and UN, I anticipated a real treat. I still remember the advertisements for his upcoming speech in the University of Minnesota Hillel building and in the Minnesota Daily, the university-wide student newspaper, having a circulation in the tens-of-thousands. I marked going to his lecture as a 'must do' activity in my schedule. There was, of course, offsetting Arab propaganda, but it was nothing like the aggressive and violent activities of Palestinian and BDS anti-Israel demonstrations nowadays. 

And so, the big day arrived. A very large campus hall had been reserved that could seat hundreds of people. I arrived early and seated myself somewhere in the middle of the hall and off to one side. The turn out, however, was disappointing. Perhaps a few dozen people were scattered throughout the big room. 

Yitzhak Rabin, other dignitaries and a university representative entered, and sat on a stage at the front of the hall. Yitzhak Rabin was introduced and came to the podium. I leaned forward in my chair expectantly. Then, he began to speak. In his very heavy Israeli accent and characteristic monotone, he droned on and on. His English was almost incomprehensible. What a disappointment! Could this be the famous Yitzhak Rabin, the war hero, the new Abba Eban? I really don't think he managed to inspire anyone that day, and I doubt whether anything he said was intelligible. The audience was polite, of course, and he finished with a round of applause. I was disappointed and sad and embarrassed. I felt that a great opportunity for Israel at the University of Minnesota had been wasted that day. I was glad that I had not asked any of my non-Jewish friends to accompany me. In retrospect, this was Israeli 'hasbara' in action (public diplomacy).

Fast forward. Year – 1995; the place – Wingate Institute. My family decided to spend the day at the Americans and Canadians in Israel (AACI) annual picnic, where my children would be able to meet and talk with other English speakers. So, I drove south from the city of Karmiel with my wife and two small children, stopping off at Netanya to see my wife's relatives, and then continued on to the picnic grounds a short distance away. In the late afternoon, with all family members starting to get tired, we considered leaving. I noticed that security personnel had been significantly augmented, and there was now an obvious presence of security vehicles. When I inquired, I was told that Yitzhak Rabin would be visiting the AACI picnic as part of his campaign in the upcoming, already acrimonious, national election. We considered whether to stay, but decided that it would be better not to wait around, anticipating a long trip with two young, tired children. 

In the evening, we watched the news on TV and saw Rabin at the picnic and how a lone protester had raced through the loose ring of guards around him, almost reaching him. Even I, as an ordinary citizen, was shocked at how close an unwanted person could get to the Prime Minister, and how poorly guarded he was. Indeed, it was ominous. 

We now know that the security establishment's mistaken 'conception' was that harm to the Prime Minster would not come from another Jew. How wrong they were! We hope that they have learned important lessons since then, will take nothing for granted, and be more creative in protecting our leaders in the future. We must consistently be vigilant and think 'out of the box' and that applies not only to protecting our Prime Minister.

Dov Lipman on Jews Stabbing Arabs: What's Really the Message?

In his article in the Jerusalem Post today, Dov Lipman has indeed expounded a learned essay. We are treated to excerpts and references to Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 39, last week’s Torah portion, the Passover Seder, the Hallel prayer, Commentaries, Kaf HaChayim Orach Chayim 685:29, High Holiday prayers, and Proverbs 24:17. From all this, Lipman concludes that attacking people simply because they are Arab or look like Arabs is foreign to Judaism. Hmm. No argument here.

But is this really Dov Lipman's message to us in these agonizing times? But wait! There is more to come. Lipman writes:

I conclude with the words penned by MK Yair Lapid after a Jew took revenge for the recent stabbings by stabbing random, innocent Arabs in Dimona last week.

“Whoever does this doesn’t understand what Judaism is, and what it means to be a Jew. Whoever does this damages Jews, damages the state, and damages our security. Because there is one principle which we have always guarded, even in the most difficult of times: We will not be like them.

We will not be like the terrorists. We will not adopt their disgusting and murderous values.”

Ah, I think that I am getting the message now. This eloquent statement by that eminent Judaic scholar, Yair Lapid, on the essence of Judaism has convinced me. Yes! I definitely should vote for Yair Lapid for Prime Minster in the coming election.

Hey, Dov, have I figured it out?

Palestinian Distortion of Stabbings Finally Gets Israeli Mainstream Media Attention

In my last posts, I have been focusing on how the Palestinians media perceive the stabbings of Jews by Palestinians. I devoted two posts to the Afula attempted stabbing by an Arab woman, who was unsuccessful in her stabbing attempt and was shot in the legs by security personnel to neutralize her. I also devoted one post to the explosion of a car carrying gas canisters and incendiary materials driven by an Arab woman. It is true that these were small incidents (and involved no fatalities) in the current large wave of Palestinian Terror that is sweeping Israel in which Jews (including innocent women and children) are being targeted by Palestinian terrorists;  my intention is to show how the blatantly terrorist event is perceived by the Palestinian propaganda machine and how it is explained to Palestinians and the world media.

I have purposely taken micro events because they are more manageable for a blog such as this. We have seen that the Palestinian media and Arab Members of the Knesset invert the facts so that the 'victim' is the Palestinian knifer/terrorist and the Jewish victim becomes 'the aggressor'. Ahmed Tibi persistently shouts 'we are the victims'. He knows that the media is the message; the victim and underdog automatically generates sympathy.

Thus, Israeli Arab members of Knesset and Palestinians call shooting a stabber in the legs murder, even though no one was killed. A policeman who was doing his job (he stopped the car because there was a traffic violation; he didn't know it was being driven by an Arab) and was a good Samaritan and wanted to put out the fire in the Arab woman's car (he didn't know she was a terrorist intending to blow up her car) is described as preventing the woman from getting out of the car with her child (there was no child). The Palestinian news agency Ma'an had no problem printing the detailed account of an anonymous Palestinian 'witness'. (How are you going to argue with someone that's anonymous?).

In the Palestinian propaganda war, facts have only marginal importance and a picture that can be 'interpreted' for their own propaganda and political purposes is the primary exhibit of their so-called 'truth'.

I was happy to see that Ynet is finally beginning to pay some attention to how Palestinian propaganda is distorting the facts. The truth is the mainstream media coverage of this important issue for Israel is rather thin. If you are interested in detailed examples of distorted and malicious Palestinian propaganda, see Palestine Media Watch here.

Palestinians Say Wounding Afula Female Terrorist is 'Murder' - Follow-up

On October 9, Assara Zidan, a single mom who studies at a local college and is separated from her husband, entered the Central Bus Station of Afula, a major town in Israel's Jezreel Valley region, and near one of the bus platforms, screamed and drew a knife on a soldier. Security personnel shot her in the legs to bring her down when she refused to drop her knife.
After the video was uploaded to the Internet, the pro-Palestinian talkbackers 'interpreted' the video as showing the lady holding her hands up trying to surrender, and the cruel Israelis shooting her.
Well, sorry dear talkbackers, even the Israeli Palestinian leadership doesn't buy the 'holding up her hands, trying to surrender' business (see below).
The Palestinian leadership, however, does indeed claim that it was a 'cold-blooded shooting' with intent to 'murder' (see my earlier post).
On October 11, journalist Attila Somfalvi interviewed Dr Basel Ghattas a member of Balad party and currently serving as a member of the Israeli Knesset for the Arab Joint List alliance.
Consider the following exchange (edited because of shouting and simultaneous overtalk). You can listen to the original here):

Dr Basel Ghattas: Whoever shoots with intent to kill ... police officers shot a young woman in Afula, even if she has a knife in her hand ... shot to kill ...
Attila Somfalvi: They shot her in her feet. She held a knife in her hand and tried to stab a soldier.
Dr. Basel Ghattas: For this you have to kill her.
Attila Somfalvi: She was not killed. She is being treated in a hospital.

Masud Ghnaim and Ahmed Tibi are also part of this chorus, as are others.

And so the lies are propagated, morphing relentlessly into a Palestinian 'narrative' that bears little resemblance to what actually happened and magnifying a distorted bogeyman of Israel and Jews as an object of hatred and rage.

Palestinians Starting to Recruit Their Women to Kill Jews?

The Palestinians made a valiant effort to describe the moderate wounding of an knife-wielding Arab women terrorist in Afula as a 'cold-blooded shooting' and 'murder'. Palestinian leaders and Internet responses raged about how 'tough' Israeli soldiers had shot a defenseless woman, who could have been disarmed by other means. The Palestinian 'narrative' of this event was not very convincing, since it contradicted the basic evidence. Not only that, the Palestinian 'narrative' disregarded the long history of women suicide bombers, of which Israeli security personnel were obviously aware when they decided to disarm the woman knife-wielder by wounding her.

At this point in time, an argument could be made that this woman was in fact a 'lone wolf terrorist' and, as such, does not indicate any particular trend in the current wave of Palestinian Terrorism. The actual details of how this woman came to be a terrorist will be revealed after she is interrogated, because she has lived to tell the tale.

Nonetheless, the Palestinian Terrorism trend now seems to be to recruit women to do the dirty business of terrorist work.

Thus, this morning, October 11, Ynet reports that a woman driving a vehicle detonated an explosive device when she was stopped near a checkpoint leading into Jerusalem.  The terrorist, a 31-year-old resident of the A-Tur neighborhood in East Jerusalem, married to a Palestinian but with no children, was severely wounded. Police said she also had gas canisters in her car (which did not explode) and was on her way to Jerusalem to carry out a bombing. The Judea and Samaria District Police said that a traffic officer noticed the vehicle driving in the bus lane on route 437, which connects Ma'ale Adumim and a-Zaim checkpoint. He signaled her to stop by the side of the road. This is what the officer said happened next:

I stepped over to her car, thankfully wearing a kevlar vest, and told her: 'Lady, you committed a traffic felony, She didn't seem to know what was going on, so I started speaking to her in Arabic, at which point she started shouting 'Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar! and I noticed smoke coming out of the car, I thought her car was on fire, so I ran to get an extinguisher, and then I heard a blast.

The wounded officer was evacuated to Shaare Zedek Medical Center with reported burns to his face. The woman is in critical condition in Hadassah Hospital.

In contrast, the Palestinian Ma'an News agency provides the account of a nameless witness, who gives a rather detailed technical explanation: i.e., that it was not a terrorist attack, but rather the woman driver panicked after an electrical failure caused a fire, which exploded the car's airbag. No explanation is given for the gas canisters. Also, the anonymous witness also claims that the lady had a child in the car, but no mention of a child is made by police sources and the lady is even reported to have no children.

In the afternoon, the Israeli police stated that handwritten documents supporting Jihad were found on the terrorist after a search and that the terrorist said she had ignited a gas canister. It should be noted that car bombs usually use detonators to explode additional explosive material such as gas canisters. This is may have been what happened in this case.

Unlike the 'lone wolf' knife terrorist, car bombs driven by women require an infrastructure, additional personnel and technical knowledge (and usually funding). The lady did not wake up one morning and decide to do this. This incident has all the telltale signs of a female suicide car bomber. A troubling and more dangerous development in the current wave of Palestinian Terrorism may be brewing.

Palestinians: Wounding Afula Female Terrorist is 'Murder'

Have you read the title of this post correctly? Can it be? Read on and follow this breaking story.

Ynet reported that on October 9, Assara Zidan, a single mom who studies at a local college and is separated from her husband, entered the Central Bus Station of Afula, a major town in Israel's Jezreel Valley region, and near one of the bus platforms, drew a knife on a soldier and began to scream. Luckily, there were security personnel nearby who saw the knife in her hand. As it turns out, there is actually a video of part of this event. From the video, it seems clear that the woman in traditional Muslim garb still has the knife raised in her hand. Furthermore, the police are calling to her probably to drop the weapon and lie down, which she does not do. She is kept at bay for a while by soldiers, till a policeman arrives, and she is shot several times in her lower body. She was taken to the hospital in 'moderate' condition. In situations where it is possible to neutralize a terrorist without shooting to kill, it is commendable that Israeli security forces routinely do so. On the British Independent newspaper site, the pro-Palestinian talkback interpretation is that she had her hands up, but I think its clear that she was wielding a knife and did not want to put it down. Finally, Israel Today informs us that the family claims that she had mental problems.

So, what was the reaction of Israeli Palestinians to this act of terrorism?

Her friends said, "This is a cold-blooded shooting, They [the Israelis] want to force us into becoming terrorists."

Another source in the Arab sector said: "The Government has given the green light to murder Arabs."

'Cold-blooded shooting'? 'Murder Arabs''? I ask you, dear reader, does this response, in tone or substance, bear any relation to the events that actually occurred. Is not a knife in the hand of a screaming terrorist who attempted to attack a solder and refuses to disarm a sufficient pretext to shoot to neutralize that person? Was anybody actually murdered here?

Well, for Palestinians, if they can't get their terrorist dead, at least they can shout 'murder'.

On October 10, at a large demonstration of Israeli Arabs in Nazareth, this so-called 'unprovoked' shooting of Assara was protested. So, I suppose this perversion of truth will join the already crowded list of Palestinian myths and lies intended to defame the good name of Israel, the only viable, true democracy in the Middle East.

By the way, it is well known that in Arab society a single woman with a child is considered an outcast. In the past, some of these women have committed terrorist acts to regain their status and redeem themselves. Female terrorists with this profile have in the past murdered many people in a single terrorist act by blowing themselves up in a crowded public place. There have also been many cases of stabbings and other terrorist acts committed by such female Palestinians.

Hamas Wants to Increase the Number of Dead Palestinians

There was some speculation on Thursday, October 8 that the current wave of Palestinian Terror was drifting toward an end. The considered opinion was that the tone would be set after prayers on Friday, October 9.

Apprehensive that the current terror wave might peter out, Hamas decided, on Oct 9, to send hundreds of people to the border fence that separates Gaza from Israel. There is a 300m buffer zone in front of the fence, and 100m in front of the fence is considered a 'closed military area'. The crowd entered the 100m zone with burning tires and throwing rocks, so this act was a clear provocation of Hamas. No innocent Palestinian civilians and bystanders here.

At this point, the Israeli Army fired warning shots in the air, but the crowd continued to advance. The Israeli Army could not allow the fence to be breached, with masses of violent Gazans breaking through and entering Israel. (By the way, Hamas has used this tactic before.) At 50m shots were fired at the legs of the advancing crowd, especially at the main instigators. The result of melee, as of today, October 10, is seven dead Palestinians plus the injured at the several hot spots along the border.

Hamas achieved its objective, fueling the fire of hate and violence against innocent Israelis with the fodder of more dead Palestinians that it, knowingly and purposefully, sent to their death. Thus, the current terror wave continues.

But don't worry about the bereaved families of the dead Gazans. They will not have any financial problems from now on. As the family of a martyr of Islam (shahid), they will be subsidized by Hamas. Hamas will get the money from the United Nations, who will get it from rich countries like the USA, who will get it from their taxpayers, i.e., you and me. Furthermore, the families of the shahids are likely to achieve stardom and get a street named after them, hopefully a bustling thoroughfare in Gaza.

By the way, the family was likely receiving a UNRWA subsidy; in Gaza, there are 1.76 million people, including 1.26 million Palestine 'refugees'. In other words, you were probably supporting them up to now anyway, including the shahid, who learned his hatred in a UNRWA-subsidized school.

And what about the shahids themselves? Well, they will be celebrating happily after being rewarded by marrying 72 dark-eyed virgins in Paradise.

Yair Lapid and the Media: Martin Sherman vs Dov Lipman

A media tiff has developed in the Jerusalem Post between two veteran, high-profile personalities: anti-Lapid Martin Sherman and pro-Lapid Dov Lipman. I am not going to delve into the specific arguments of either side. I am more interested in Lapid's handling of the media, a topic with which I have already dealt with in this blog and will deal with again. This topic is of great interest because the print media clout has declined and the digital media have risen to prominence. The rules have changed.

The following are the Sherman vs Lipman developments up to now.

On September 25, 2015, veteran opinion columnist Martin Sherman, authored an anti-Lapid article in the Jerusalem Post. One would have thought that it wouldn't have created much of a ripple, after all we are still so far away from even any talk of elections. Not so.

Anti-Sherman letters to the editor were received at the Jerusalem Post. With regard to these letters to the editor, the Jerusalem Post said the following:

The letters editor responds: Six letters directly referring to the September 25 column were received by press time on September 29. All were piercing, and all were negative. There was no indication of an organized letter-writing campaign, so it was clear that Martin Sherman had struck a nerve. To reflect this, four of the letters were chosen for publication. The two positive letters that arrived (this and the one above it) came solely in response to the negative letters. Please be assured that I view the letters section as the readers’ soapbox.

I bow to no pressure, political or otherwise, and try to present letters in a way that reflects the tone and balance of the material that arrives.

Furthermore, Sherman tells us that Lapid's office approached the Jerusalem Post and demanded a public disassociation from Sherman's article. Obviously, the JP could not and would not do that. They cannot produce a disclaimer for every opinion that annoys someone.
Finally, on October 2, two pro-Sherman letters to the editor appeared.
In that same issue was a follow-up article by Sherman (in response to the pro-Lapid letters), and on the same page, a rebuttal by Lipman, speaking for the Lapid camp, of the original Sherman article.
So what can we learn from all this.

1. Lapid is very conscious of his public image because he is trying to position himself as the front-runner in the campaign for Prime Minster in the next election. Anything anti-Lapid will be swiftly dealt with by flaming or an intensive campaign to swamp the anti-Lapid 'view'.
2. It is quite clear that some of the pro-Lapid letters were consciously generated by the Lapid camp itself; they have the telltale signs (here I differ with the JP Letters Editor). See the letters here. The formula is:
   Say something (against someone, preferably against Netanyahu or for Lapid) + say Lapid for Prime Minster or Lapid is a leader/has leadership qualities.
   We saw this in the responses to Lapid's Iceland letter (you can see this formula in action in the talk-backs on Lapid's site. By constantly repeating the theme 'Lapid for Prime Minister' (or some variation thereof), you penetrate the consciousness of the public and accustom it to the idea's plausibility. Remember, the 'media is the message'.
3. Lapid's anti-Sherman letters were partly successful. After all, it was unusual to print four anti-Sherman letters in one issue (even though the JP resisted printing a disclaimer). Indeed, the intensity of the pro-Lapid letters would certainly require the letters to be reflected in the letters column, as the JP editor states.
4.  Lapid's camp did succeed in getting Lipman's rebuttal in the newspaper as counterweight, in addition to the pro-Lapid letters to the editor.

In previous posts, I have addressed Lapid's media strategy. See my posts on Lipman and on Lapid's Reykjavik boycott letter. Also see Lapid and the Media: A Micro Case Study.

Stay tuned for more analysis of Lapid's media strategy.

Palestinian Fabrication of Settler Child Shooting Not Corrected by Palestinian News Agency

The Palestinian Ma'an news agency reported today (12.40 p.m.) the story of a child shot  by an Israeli settler in the so-called occupied territories near Kalkilya. The Palestinian 'narrative' was that a settler car stopped near the six-year-old boy, shot him and drove away. The older brother saw that the car had Israeli license plates. Other media also picked up and printed the story.
The Ma'an agency 'updated' the story at 17.50 p.m. to show that the report was 'single source', relying only on the 'family's' version. It also reported that the IDF was investigating.
The truth came out this afternoon even before the Ma'an 'update'.
About 16.00 Haaretz and Ynet both reported the results of the IDF investigation. It turns out that the child shot himself while playing with the gun of his brother, who serves in the Palestinian Authority police.
The boy's family fabricated the story (you can also say lied) to prevent the older brother from getting into trouble and to get an added Palestinian Authority stipend as an unfortunate 'terror victim' of Israeli settlers.
When I posted this at 7:35 pm on October 3, Ma'an has still not added the results of the IDF investigation that it had reported was being conducted.
The child is reportedly currently in stable but still serious condition and on life support.
When I checked back this morning, I saw that Ma'an left the original story was still intact, but it had a link that 'challenges' that version in a different article at 10.59 pm, Israeli army rejects involvement of Israelis in Qalqiliya shooting, even though the original story had already been preempted. Finally, they do admit in the challenge that:

Palestinian Authority security sources said that they were following up on the child's death after initial reports from relatives appeared to be false.

The Israel Today print edition, on Oct 4, 2015, reports that "Palestinian sources" are furious with the family for lying and for the older son's negligence with his police weapon.
So much for 'timely and objective' news reporting by this Palestine-based news source. Of course, the false story still exists on the Ma'an site and is reverberating on the internet, which is, of course, what the Palestinian media are really interested in. The token link to the IDF challenge exists to keep up the appearances of perfunctory objectivity.
The real story of violence on October 3 was the murder of two Israelis and injury of two more in Jerusalem.

Netanyahu's 2015 Speech at the United Nations - Impressions

Netanyahu speech was devoted mostly to the Iran nuclear deal, and it's good that he is continuing to pound away at that theme -- enforcing meaningful inspection is especially important, even if the agreement cannot be stopped for now.

What I think is really interesting and important, however, is something to which he devoted only a couple of sentences, i.e., that Israel is working with its Arab peace partners (Egypt, Jordan) and others in the region, perhaps a reference to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, based on their common interest to oppose Shiite and Islamic State extremism.

This is a direct continuation of Netanyahu's vision ​(and hard work) ​for a rapproch​e​ment ​with more ​Arab st​a​tes​, and which el-Sissi also mentioned recently​. This is what we should watch in the future.

​Finally, I took a look at an Israeli site to see what kind of talkbacks the speech generated. I noted that the anyone-but-Bibi crowd is out in force. Too bad these people don't talk content rather than clever negativism and cynicism.

Lapid Leverages the Media: A Micro Case Study

When Egyptian President el-Sissi stated in an AP interview that he wanted to expand Egypt's peace treaty with Israel to include other Arab states, it was great news for Israel, and Netanyahu's office was quick to respond. I went online for background (expecting to find mention of the growing common interests of Egypt, Saudi Arabia vis-a-vis Iran, Islamic State, etc.) and found "Netanyahu praises Sisi's call to expand Egypt-Israel peace to other Arab states" written by the JPost.COM Staff (get it here) (no authors stated by name).

This seemed to be what I was looking for. When I opened the article, I discovered, however, something entirely different. Stay with me as we analyze this short article.

Let's Check the Numbers  (total article length - 408 words)

 

Title and Introductory Subheadings (47 words)

 

In addition to the article title, I found linked sub-headings to Abbas' expected bombshell at the UN and to Yair Lapid's support for the 2002 Saudi Initiative (actually his recent Bar-Ilan speech). There was a further sub-heading (unlinked) about Netanyahu's call to Abbas to return to the negotiating table. The article title and sub-headngs amounted to 47 words, but only 13 of those words related to Netanyahu's response. Nine words were the link to Lapid's Bar Ilan speech.

Body of the Article (361 words)

 

The first subject covered was the el-Sissi response. The first 87 words pertained to Netanyahu's response including a short quote from his office's press release, which we were informed was released before the onset of Succot (I suppose to allay the fears of religious readers). What was really interesting, however, was Lapid's response (186 words! including another link to the same link as previously, except this time called the 'Bar-Ilan speech').

The second subject in the article was Lapid's and Netanyahu's upcoming trips to the US, with more prominence given to Lapid's trip (Lapid's is first although it will be chronologically after Netanyahu's). We were informed that Lapid will be going to the US after the Succot holiday to discuss his 'diplomatic initiative' with American lawmakers (32 words). (What! Does an Opposition leader make diplomatic initiatives?!) Afterward, the article mentions that Netanyahu will be going to speak at the UN (22 words).

The third subject is more about Abbas (34 words).

Conclusion 

 

So what are our conclusions about this article, which is ostensibly about the Netanyahu's response to el-Sissi's remarks (that was the title of the article).
Netanyahu - 100 words; Lapid 195 words, plus two separate links to Lapid's Bar-Ilan speech.

On trips to the US:
Netanyahu - 22 words; Lapid 32 words

The rest was on Abbas.

In short,  Lapid succeeded in garnering 50% of the article + 2 separate links to his Bar-Ilan speech; Netanyahu had 25% with no links, and the rest was about Abbas (25%).

A Final Word 

 

What I believe happened here is that the article started out as Netanyahu's response to el-Sissi. Netanyahu's team rushed to get out a response before Succot and then, having done their duty, went home to prepare for the holiday. In contrast, it seems that Lapid actually talked with the reporters by phone (he is quoted), and his office followed up with his post-Succot US trip (Lapid's 'diplomatic initiative'). Lapid and his team were more focused on the reporters and gave them more information. Therefore, Lapid's positions came to dominate the article. Netanyahu's media team was already in holiday mode and, therefore, Netanyahu came in a poor second.

Many years ago, Marshall McLuhan said 'the medium is the message'. If you dominate the medium, your message will dominate. I must pay my highest respects to Lapid. The man is a media genius. He was handed the subject of Netanyau's el-Sissi reply and turned it into an article mostly about himself. In short, Lapid dominated this article and clearly won this micro media skirmish.

I suggest that we all read and listen to the mass media with discernment, because it is likely that an attempt is being made to manipulate, and at least we should know about it. Lastly, please note that intensive media involvement per event is not the only way that Lapid handles the media. In a previous blog, I showed how Lapid manipulates the press by more subtle means.

Netanyahu To Speak at United Nations

Some may think that Netanyahu's speeches are controversial, but he is always interesting and worth listening to. Whether it's his speech to the US Congress or his speeches at the United Nations. In Netanyahu's speech to the UN on September 29, 2014, he said the following:

Despite the enormous challenges facing Israel, I believe we have an historic opportunity.

After decades of seeing Israel as their enemy, leading states in the Arab world increasingly recognize that together we and they face many of the same dangers: principally this means a nuclear-armed Iran and militant Islamist movements gaining ground in the Sunni world.

Our challenge is to transform these common interests to create a productive partnership. One that would build a more secure, peaceful and prosperous Middle East.

Together we can strengthen regional security. We can advance projects in water, agriculture, in transportation, in health, in energy, in so many fields.

I believe the partnership between us can also help facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Many have long assumed that an Israeli-Palestinian peace can help facilitate a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab World. But these days I think it may work the other way around: Namely that a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world may help facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

And therefore, to achieve that peace, we must look not only to Jerusalem and Ramallah, but also to Cairo, to Amman, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and elsewhere. I believe peace can be realized with the active involvement of Arab countries, those that are willing to provide political, material and other indispensable support. I’m ready to make a historic compromise ....

In other words, Netanyahu suggested first working with other Arab countries in the region that have common interests with Israel as a catalyst for a productive peace process with the Palestinians. This idea had been broached in the past but conditions were perhaps not ripe for progress.

Netanyahu's domestic naysayers will say, perhaps, that this is just another Netanyahu ploy to avoid any real peace process with the Palestinians, because Netanyahu's coalition is 'extreme right' and against any kind of settlement of the conflict, as he is himself. (This argument avoids the inconvenient fact that Avigdor Liberman is no longer in the Coalition.)

Now, there has been an interesting development. The Egyptian President said on September 27, 2015, ahead of Netanyahu's UN speech in an interview with the Associated Press, that efforts should be renewed to solve the Palestinian issue and expand Egypt's nearly 40-year-peace with Israel to include more Arab countries. And so, we see that Netanyahu's 2014 vision for ending the Palestinian conflict--and indeed it is a vision--is slowly but surely beginning to take shape. To Netanyahu's credit, he understood the opportunity of a changed Middle East after the so-called Arab Spring and identified the way to move carefully forward.
Whether you agree or disagree with Netanyahu, I suggest that we all watch his United Nations speech on Thursday, October 1. It will definitely be interesting and worthy of comment.