A Question for pro-Palestine Activists
FROM THE GET-GO, please allow me to make a statement – a sort of disclaimer, if you will. I believe in freedom of speech. I believe being an activist on behalf of the Palestinians is a good thing (unless taken to the extreme). I do believe that eventually the two peoples will live in peace (even though it would probably take a horrifying war for both to reach that conclusion). What I do not believe in, however, is hypocrisy.
Now, that is not to say I believe Israel is blameless. No doubt, Israeli politicians and generals could do far a better job – at both protecting their own people and the ones on the other side. Constructive criticism should be upheld at any opportunity – without it, we cannot move forward as establishing ourselves as a good society. That is, of course, when the criticism is constructive, based on facts and address the issues in context.
Perfect example would the IDF operation Cast Lead, during last December and January (2008-2009). The operation took significant toll on Palestinian civilian population. Demolished houses, killed civilians and destroyed infrastructure in no way makes lives of Palestinians better – and I believe it is mostly fair for pro-Palestine activists to address those issues. Their tactics are usually flawed however, as they misguide their readers and fellow activists by missing on the context. For example, it is true that Israel attacked Gaza on December 27, 2008. It is also true, that the attack did not come out of nothing.
On its website, Amnesty International publishes a report named: “Operation "Cast Lead": 22 days of death and destruction”. The short introduction to the document manages to falsely state Israel did not warn Hamas of the attack (while in fact, Israel issued warnings several times prior to the offensive), falsely make the impression that all of stated 1,400 Gazan victims were civilians, and demands “a thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the conduct of all parties in the conflict”.
One would doubt Amnesty’s impartiality as it – as well as most Palestinian Rights Groups – looks at the micro, while ignoring the macro (later, Richard Goldstone and the UNHRC team followed suit). While the operation certainly should be investigated, why not launch an investigation into the entire process that led to the attacks? After all, the “stated aim was to end rocket attacks into Israel by armed groups affiliated with Hamas and other Palestinian factions”, so why shouldn’t an investigation take the “stated aim” into account? Since when Jewish children suffering years of sleepless nights thanks are cast aside? Further doubt would be cast on Amnesty’s impartiality if one reads the actual report: while the document goes into great detail to investigate IDF’s actions (titles include: “Air strikes targeting people”, “Close-range Shootings”, “Attacking and obstructing medical workers”, “Ineffective warnings”, “Public buildings destroyed without justification”, et cetera), Amnesty went to no lengths to similarly investigate actions by Gazans (“Widening circle of fear”, “Armed groups’ rationale for rocket attacks”, “Israeli allegations about use of “human shields””).
One can certainly notice separate approaches taken by Amnesty – and other Palestinian Rights Groups – to the investigation. Such groups certainly do not represent the issue fairly – in the aforementioned report, for example, Gazans are given a full two pages (including an image) to explain their “rationale” for attacking Israelis. Sadly, Amnesty is far from being a single example of hypocritical attitude towards the conflict.
So I have a question to Palestinian Rights Groups, Palestinian Rights Activists, pro-Palestine activists, Human Rights Activists and the liberal crows: Where were you almost nine years ago, when first Qassam rockets started landing without Israel? Oh, right: you used the excuse that Israel was occupying Gaza, so it was okay. After all, Qassam rockets are “crude” and “seldom do much damage”, so it is okay to fire them at Israelis.
Then Israel left Gaza. Some argue that Israel did not fully withdraw, and I will agree. Israel left Gaza’s land, while keeping control of the skies and seas. The plan was to see if Hamas actually stops its genocidal rhetoric and starts building a prosperous society, instead of pledging to murder some more Jews. Well, we all know how that ended. Now imagine if Israel would completely leave Gaza, allowing steady flow of high-tech weapons from Iran and Syria. Would any of you, dear Peace Activists care if rockets would rain on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? What would your actions be then? Which excuse would you come up then to justify the murderous intent of Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh? You do not keep all your doors unlocked in a bad neighborhood.
And then comes the blockade excuse. “Israel blockades Gaza”, so it is fair to fight Israel. This statement – constantly used by Hamas advocates – is for simple-minded people. Lest forget the primary reason for the blockade wasn’t even Hamas’ terror activity – it was the fact that Haniyeh’s henchmen started forcing opposition out of Gaza. Firefights between Hamas and Fatah took place daily for over a month. Mashaal’s minions rounded up Fatah men, executing them on the street, injuring women and children in the process. The situation actually got so bad, some Gazans started complaining they had better times under Israeli rule. Well, now that Hamas is in control, they won’t have their say anyway.
And then there is a matter of Egypt. While we could unquestionably understand Israel’s reason for blockading Gaza (they are just evil, children-murdering Jews), what is Egypt’s reasoning? Why is Egypt – an Arab, Muslim country – leaving their brothers behind, rarely opening crossing, letting in less humanitarian aid than Israel does? Is there anything Egyptians know that Amnesty doesn’t? Of course there is. The Egyptians know that Hamas is a terrorist organization, fueled by fundamentalist principles. Hamas uses great force to reach it’s goal (as we demonstrated in previous paragraph), no matter the cost.
So let us ask, now: where were you, Amnesty International, when thousands of rockets poured on Israeli towns and cities? Certainly, the rarity of fatalities in Israel is no thanks to you, but instead thanks to Israel building fortified bunkers every 100 yards (something Hamas builds only for its own fighters). Where are you, Human Rights Watch, when Hamas official pledges in its charter to murder Jews? Where were you, Twitter activists, when Palestinians shot their own people, fighting for power (fight that took lives of 98 civilians)? Where are you, human rights activists and liberals, when Hamas teaches its people murder, and incites them to “slaughter” Jews?
You, my dear activists, might want to disregard all of the above statements. In fact, you probably will. Certainly, you will lose sleep at night. But not over Jewish victims. Those are okay.
Criticizing Israel is not a negative thing (even though, unlike Palestinians, Israel has quite a few Palestinians’ Rights Groups of its own). But if you want the truth – you have to examine the both sides. There is no black and white in the Middle East.
Reporters Without Balance
“FREEDOM WATCHDOGS” USUALLY outdo each other in criticizing particular governments / countries / politicians they happen to dislike. The Human Rights Watch, for example, champions, well – human rights, choosing their targets carefully. HRW’s website contains 4,270 references to Afghanistan, 4,170 references to Iraq (with casualties in both countries going into several dozens of thousands), 3,110 mentions of Darfur (casualties going into hundreds of thousands) and whopping 6,920 remarks about Israel (Palestinian / Israeli civilian casualties, Sept. 2000 – Dec. 2008: nearly 5150 / 727). While Israel accounts for small percentage of deaths among aforementioned locations, it receives most attention from Human Rights Watch. Amnesty International joins the HRW, with numbers going 35,300, 35,300, 8,850 and 65,500 accordingly. I should mention that while I am not legitimizing Israel’s actions with these numbers, it does seem inappropriately unbalanced to me.
Just as with aforesaid organizations, many watchdogs simply throw numbers at their readers, no context provided. Case in point: Reporters Without Borders (a.k.a. Reporters Sans Frontières) “Press Freedom Index” for the year 2006 (the year of conflict between Israel and Lebanon) ranks Lebanon in 107th place, citing the following as reason of downfall:
Lebanon has fallen from 56th to 107th place in five years, as the country’s media continues to suffer from the region’s poisonous political atmosphere, with a series of bomb attacks in 2005 and Israeli military attacks this year. The Lebanese media – some of the freest and most experienced in the Arab world – desperately need peace and guarantees of security. The inability of the Palestinian Authority (134th) to maintain stability in its territories and the behaviour of Israel (135th) outside its borders seriously threaten freedom of expression in the Middle East.
Missing from RWB report: additional reasons for freedom of speech infringement in Lebanon (like terror groups controlling the news coverage). It is quite probable, that RWB considers constant Jew-hating propaganda on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar as freedom of speech as well. It’s not the terrorists that are to blame for restrictions of journalism, it’s not the inept Siniora government – blame it better on the Jews.
In 2009, RWB criticizes Israel for mistreating, injuring and killing journalists during operation Cast Lead:
Israel has begun to use the same methods internally as it does outside its own territory. Reporters Without Borders registered five arrests of journalists, some of them completely illegal, and three cases of imprisonment. The military censorship applied to all the media is also posing a threat to journalists.
As regards its extraterritorial actions, Israel was ranked 150th. The toll of the war was very heavy. Around 20 journalists in the Gaza Strip were injured by the Israeli military forces and three were killed while covering the offensive.
In the meanwhile, you might remember, that during the Gaza offensive, international journalists demanded “unfettered” access to Gaza Strip. Now, imagine what would happen, if in fact Israel did. Obviously, more reporters would die during firefights and air raids, with RWB and others this time accusing Israel of waging a war on journalists and free speech.
See the no-win-win situation? If Israel tries to save itself the trouble of having a numerous hotheads going in and getting their heads blown off – it is accused of freedom of speech infringement. If it would actually allow journalists in (as it did in West Bank), those would be killed in firefights (with some being shot by Israeli forces), spurring organizations such as aforementioned Reporters Sans Frontières to cry wolf.
What’s even worse, is that such groups never, ever, present context, evidence to the reader; neither do they investigate cases. For example, look at this case: Fadel Shana, 23, cameraman for Reuters in Gaza, allegedly killed by IDF Merkava tank shell from a distance. The video clip is quickly runs us through the basics of the incident; quickly enough, in fact, to get the viewer worked up at the evil Israelis, without giving him or her a chance to study the situation. But please allow me to do so, still.
First and foremost, Reuters claims Shana was killed soon after he started filming. While far from certain, it is unclear if tank crew had the optics to discern the object, mounted by Shana. Remember – quite a few guided anti-tank rockets are mounted on a tripod, thus it is unclear if tank crew could see that the object was actually a camera, rather than an RPG.
The report also states that Shana was traveling in a car clearly marked “TV”, which we could see in a video. What we also could see in the video, is that Shana obviously films from a high location, while the car is parked between two mounds. It is still unclear if the tank crew could the the parked vehicle at all.
Then come the victims. Let’s turn to another Reuters statement:
After medical examinations of Shana’s body, Reuters said that Israel had used a controversial type of tank shell which scatters metal darts, or flechettes, around the surrounding area after exploding, risking civilian casualties. Israel refused to comment on the report, but stated that the weapons were not illegal.
Hm… Now maybe I’m a skeptic (I am), but after three years Combat Engineering service, I’ve seen my share of explosions and aftermaths of such. For example, I could tell you that after an explosion, fragile 
equipment, such pictured (neatly folded) tripod (right) would not survive. I also know, that after an explosion, you would surely see burns on bodies of victims. Yeah, those we can’t see either.
Another amazing thing, by the way, that in otherwise empty surroundings (you can see a lonely house in the video), so many 
people found themselves around the cameraman, including children. Pictured (right) is another image from the report, showing a child carried by paramedic, put on a hospital bed and rolled into ER. What did a child do together with the cameraman covering war?
Quite obviously, Reporters Without Borders become Reporters Without Balance. On many occasions I maintained: if you want to criticize Israel, it is fine. However, for anyone to listen to you, be fair and investigate your reports, don’t just throw them to public unsubstantiated. For example, phrases such as “completely illegal [arrests]” make your report look foolish and childish. If you want to be heard by anyone else but the radicals – you also have to back up your statements with some facts.
80 teens refuse to be drafted, hundreds respond with calls to contrary
Hippie protesters
JUST RECENTLY, THE press gave stage to another group of loons – this time aged below twenty. 80 high school students signed a letter – addressed to the Prime Minister, Minister of Defense and several notable public figures – saying they are “future draft refusers [sic]” of IDF draft order, stating they would not be “soldiers of occupation”, declaring: “hereby announce that we object to Israel’s oppressive policy in the occupied territories and within the state of Israel, and therefore we will refuse to take part in these activities, which are carried out in our name by the Israel Defense Army”.
I believe I could go long and loud about how retarded the logic of the teens is. While it is obvious the teens are being exploited, in part, by radical Left-wing elements and in part by extremist “Palestinian Rights Groups” and various “peace movements”, it is less obvious why the mainstream media decided to grant such a stage to small liberal assembly on nutcases.
The reasons are twofold: a) many Israeli journalists, reporters and pundits are – as in the United States – centrists to radical liberals. Promoting diehard liberal agenda, promoted by teenagers – as role models to future generations – is a sacred mission for some of them; b) liberal ideology of most current news sources demands “equal exposure” to readers of all agenda. You should read it as: Liberal agenda gets right of way, while conservative and/or Right-wing rhetoric gets swept under the enormous rug.
Thankfully, some news portals (not all of them, and Ynet should be commended for being one of fair and balanced crowd), published another story, of a letter signed by over 500 teen students (most of them from the National-Religious camp), stating they promote joining the IDF as means of protecting their country. The students retorted to the ‘refusniks’ by writing: “we can’t let the voice of one minority change the entire national mood to one big down”. Moreover, the students added that if the “refusers” believe IDF needs to be changed, the way to do just that is to join the Army and promote your vision from within, instead of hiding away from potential dangers. The ‘promoters’ also added that the “refusers” could have joined the National Service – civilian service instead of military one.
The teenage radicals failed the country, forgetting that in order to build a good, moral society – every one needs to chip in his or her own way. If you only care about yourself – you will grow up to be a resentful, bitter old man/woman, holding angry signs at empty streets. If you want change – you actually have to do something. Chickening out is not the way to go.
For NYT contributors, facts unimportant, as are to editors
THE MOST RECENT New York Times opinion article is written by Zahi Khouri, the “chief executive of the Palestinian National Beverage Co.” – a businessman, who once left Manhattan to open his own business in Palestine. And his operation prospered – that is, until the evil Israelis suddenly, without any reason at all, imposed tough economic sanctions and movement restrictions on Palestinian people. Just like that – no reason at all.
Mr. Khouri is quite good at playing the numbers card, quoting World Bank and International Monetary Fund figures. For example:
Yet the International Monetary Fund’s projected growth of 7 percent in the West Bank for 2009 is largely the result of Palestinian reforms undertaken in spite of the obstacles Israel continues to place in the way of Palestinian development.
…
According to a June 2009 World Bank report, real G.D.P. in the occupied Palestinian territory has declined by a “cumulative 34 percent in real per capita terms” since September 2000.
Khouri understands that the economic growth is not God-sent and could be reversed, by saying that “7 percent growth is no sure thing”. He, however, knows exactly whom to blame:
Netanyahu’s economic and political dictums determine whether we grow or contract. He wields this immense power over us, although Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza had no role in his election.
…
Israeli spreading settlements, checkpoints and roadblocks that fragment the occupied Palestinian territory; Israel’s illegal Wall and its permit system that severely restrict where Palestinians can live and work; and Israel’s continuing siege of Gaza all not only threaten our nascent economic recovery, but threaten the very possibility of a two-state solution
…
President Obama recognizes this. President Mahmoud Abbas recognizes this. Yet Benjamin Netanyahu somehow thinks he can charm Palestinians, who are daily reminded of the occupation under which they suffer, with a 7-percent growth bubble.
You guessed it right – it’s the Israelis fault. If there is one thing missing from Khouri’s piece it’s Palestinian “activism” in form of murder of over a thousand Israelis, wounding or injuring another several thousands. Khouri would not direct blame on his fellow Palestinians in Islamic Jihad or Tanzim or HAMAS for opening armed battles with Israeli forces, sending dozens suicide bombers into Jewish neighborhoods and cities. It is okay to murder these babies – they are Jewish.
Khouri’s piece provides excellent insight into the propaganda machine run by some Palestinian individuals (both from the private sector and the political echelon), and supported or relayed by major press sources – both currently focus on Israeli settlement expansion as the reason for Peace Process being stuck where it currently is. No commentators mention Mahmoud Abbas’ refusal to recognize Israel and a state for the Jews; no columnists remind readers of religious sermons encouraging Palestinians to murder Jews. Yet, it is horrible when IAF hurts civilians when targeting a terrorist, but fully fine when a Palestinian hacks a 13-years-old boy with an axe.
Khouri claims Israeli actions “threaten the very possibility of a two-state solution”, yet fails to tell his reader that in Palestinian eyes there should be Palestine – the state for Palestinian Arabs – and Israel, a democratic (for a while, at least) state with Arab majority. Yes, that is correct – as Palestinians demand return of 4 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants into the borders of 1967 Israel, the Jewish state would soon become just another Arab state.
Responding to the blood libel
SINCE THE PUBLICATION of the notorious blood-libel by Swedish Aftonbladet, Israeli officials and activists responded en-masse, discovering the weak spots within Donald Bolstrom’s reporting; demanding the Swedish government to condemn the publication. After all, it does seem ridiculous – Bolstrom says he simply relays the stories, but does not know if the allegations are correct.
Bolstrom points to the major point of defeat for the western media on subject of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a major point of victory for Palestinian armed factions. The international press always treated eyewitness testimony with respect, however, it is in the Middle East that many – if not most – stories are actually based on such testimonies. Aftonbladet’s story is excellent in reflecting on that subject: the article bases its allegations and conclusions on people’s accounts, rather than facts (as anyone practicing law will tell you, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable one). Yes, Bolstrom says he saw the bullet-riddled body. However, that is all he saw and it is unclear if he attempted to dig deeper. Just as it is possible that the man was shot by IDF troops (which, still, does not warrant the conclusion that his organs were stolen), it is also possible that this man what killed in a firefight between two armed Palestinian factions – those events are no rarity. Furthermore, during operation Cast Lead in Gaza earlier this year, some IDF troops on the ground alleged some HAMAS fighters wore standard IDF uniforms, thus impersonating Israeli forces. Just another option Bolstrom should have considered writing his – currently baseless – article.
To be precise, the article – which can be found here – goes far beyond simple blood libel, accusing Israeli soldiers of stealing organs from bodies of Palestinian youths. The article goes to to allege IDF soldiers murdered people on purpose, in order to harvest the organs. Bolstrom alleges the troops murdered a young, 19-years-old teenager, for hurling rocks at them – by staging an ambush and gunning him down in cold blood. To spice the mix up, the author goes on to imply high-ranking Israeli officials were responsible for the murder of 19-years-old Bilal Ghanan.
Viewing the article impartially, some things are easily discernable. It is clear Bolstrom’s article is one of tabloid, not serious reporting. Author brings to light claims and allegations from as far back as 1992, now impossible to investigate. All ‘facts’ in the article are based on hearsay and on unsubstantiated sources. Some information Bolstrom received from Palestinian Authority, however, knowing the hostile standing of the Palestinian leadership towards Israel, it is unclear how trustworthy those facts are (they could be, in fact, as trustworthy as Palestinian claim of over 500 civilian deaths in Jenin refugee camp in 2003; final number – 65, five of them militants). While Aftonbladet editor Jan Helin claimed article he approved is "investigative journalism", there is really nothing investigative about the piece; what Bolstrom did is known in professional journalism as ‘interview’.
Article’s claims received another blow when Jerusalem Post journalist Khaled Abu Toameh actually investigated the case and found the victim’s family. When asked, the relatives replied they never told any journalist their son’s organs were "plundered", but they did remember a Swedish photographer at Bilal’s funeral:
"Obviously, they performed some kind of an autopsy on the body," the brother said. "When the army handed us the body, we were ordered to bury him quickly and in the middle of the night."
Jalal said that he and other villagers recall that a Swedish photographer was in the village during the funeral and that he managed to take a number of pictures of the body before the funeral. "That was the only time we saw this photographer," he recounted.
Ibrahim Ghanem, a relative of Bilal, said that the family never told the Swedish photographer that Israel had stolen organs from the dead man’s body.
"Maybe the journalist reached that conclusion on the basis of the stitches he saw on the body," he said. "But as far as the family is concerned, we don’t know if organs were removed from the body because we never performed our own autopsy. All we know is that Bilal’s teeth were missing."
Bolstrom’s version of events was also countered by some medical experts. For example, in an interview discovered by Backspin blog, Andrea Meyerhoff MD, an Associate Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine says the intent could not have been organ harvest, as troops’ actions clearly put those under grave danger:
According to his account, Israeli soldiers shot the young guy in the chest, then in each leg, then once ‘in the stomach.’
I take this last to mean the abdomen, since it isn’t possible to see the individual organ called the stomach from the outside of the body.
A gunshot wound to the chest or abdomen is a serious injury because it can damage internal organs- either by interruption of the blood supply, which causes hemorrhage, or because it causes infection via perforation of the intestine and/or the introduction of a foreign body. A guy shot in both legs can’t go far. Why, if the goal is to steal organs worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, would soldiers shoot an individual in both the chest and abdomen and risk damage to the valuable organs in these body cavities? Such organs are not usable for transplant.
While Aftonbladet claims the goal of the story is to raise questions and call for an investigation, it is clear that publishing baseless accusations is not the way to promote comprehensive inquiry. Some, however, join Bolstrom’s tune, such as Iranian journalist Kusar Aslam, who claims not only to witness similar events, but to possess mind-reading ability, as he was able to discern IDF troops’ intent to harvest organs:
According to Aslam, some of the Palestinians were still alive when they were "kidnapped" by IDF soldiers.
"I personally witnessed Israeli soldiers and army vehicles snatching Palestinian bodies from emergency rooms," the Iranian reporter said. "In other instances I saw soldiers follow Palestinians to cemeteries with the intent of stealing bodies before they were buried.
And so, irresponsible Swedish reporting is taken as fact by propagandists and dishonest individuals.
JUST AS BAD, however (well, almost just as bad), were futile efforts by Israeli officials and interviewees to counter Bolstrom’s points. In a YouTube video posted above, Donald Bolstron and Dr. Mordechai Kedar (whom I deeply respect) fight it out over the allegations. While I certainly commend Dr. Kedar’s passion (he is one of the view Arabic-speaking Jews often invited to speak on Arabic TV channels, and is never afraid to present his pro-Israel points), it is true that in this case his case is ineffective. Getting agitated, Dr. Kedar’s English stumbles, and average viewer would be tempted to take Bolstrom’s seemingly calm and calculated side against a fanatic crying out loud "Lies, lies!".
Government’s reaction was just as bad, mostly. While the step of delaying Aftonbladet’s press credentials renewal was a correct one, the blame game was not. Benjamin Netanyahu’s and Avigdor Lieberman’s furious reaction was understandable – but ineffective and, basically – useless. Releasing press statements with demands for Swedish government to condemn the publication would do no good.
What could be effective, is a more calm, but firm approach. Netanyahu should have immediately ordered Swedish ambassador to his office and reminded her, that Swedish government offered official apologies to Yemenite government, following publication of Muhammad cartoons on a Swedish website (as well as taking the website down). Netanyahu could also threaten deterioration in relations with Sweden and recall Israeli ambassador from Stockholm to Jerusalem for "consultation" – a reasonable step taken by any government, to let the other side understand – we are talking serious business.
Aftonbladet’s press credentials should have been cancelled, with Israeli government announcing that the newspaper could either produce certain evidence of the allegations, or apologize for Bolstrom’s debacle. Free speech is sacred – but, as HonestReporting notices, it also bears a spoon of responsibility. The tabloid could publish everything to its liking – but it must also be ready to accept the consequences.
It is time for activists, academics and politicians to comprehend simple truth – the only way Israel can win the PR war, is by using specific facts at its disposal. The press will always be inclined to trust pro-Palestinian sources first, for variety of reasons. It is up to Israelis to use the evidence on the ground to prove the accusers wrong.
Lieberman receives unexpected support gesture
THE NATIONAL AND international press are busy assaulting Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s decision to bar those who never served the Israeli Defense Forces or the National Service from Foreign Ministry’s cadet course. Liberman’s decision – surprisingly – was supported today by Israel’s Consul General to Alexandria, Egypt – Hassan Ka’bia.
Ka’bia, a Bedouin and a former Lieutenant-Colonel in Israeli Defense Forces, stated to the press that Lieberman’s decision was right one, asserting such act would only ban those not willing to contribute to their communities:
For many years already, the Arab sector has ganged up against national service. There were demonstrations against national service. I say, these are people who are supposed to be partners with the State. They need to do national service at the very least: to work in the village, in hospitals, somewhere.
Ka’bia then went on to say that while he is not calling for Arab population to join the Army, he believes Arab youths should join the National Service – an Israel-wide project, incorporating dozens of thousands of youths, service for a year or two, contributing to the community by means of working with the sick and the elderly, children and the disabled, etc.
He then expressed his full support for Lieberman’s stand:
If you don’t identify with the State, this is a problem," he said. "I am not coming to sign them on a loyalty document, but identification is (expressed) through contribution. In order to represent the State, you must identify with it, to be familiar with the society. The cadets’ course that trains diplomats is not enough. You must prove that you have done something for Israeli society. I hold Lieberman in great esteem for what he said."
…
The minister’s statements aren’t against Arabs. He isn’t speaking out against us. He is saying – this is the most prestigious course that trains diplomats to serve in various countries. As a consul, I need to explain the government’s policies, the policies of what is going on in Israel. Therefore, it is not enough to come to the diplomatic corps and do a course
…
There is a bunch of diplomats from the Druze sector, as well as Arabs and Bedouins
Sweden’s secret war for exports
Next - call to the government for some Norwegian "contribution"?
WHILE SWEDISH GOVERNMENT promotes baseless anti-Semitic charges, it seems the Swedes have a war of their own, fought against Norway. The goal is different, though – economy and exports. Following Ynet expose blows the story wide open:
OSLO – Gravad lax – or pickled salmon – is one of the most popular Scandinavian dishes. Its preparation process is simple and quick, and its ingredients are seemingly identical everywhere: Salmon fillet, salt, sugar, oil, and herbs.
However, despite this, those in the know and lox connoisseurs have been claiming that the Swedish gravad lax tastes differently than the Norwegian, Finnish, and Danish variety. “The Swedish variety contains some sort of slight sourness, “ says Danish Chef Richard Muller Holstrum. “I was never able to detect its source.”
Horror at the village
Arnolf Lillehammer, a resident of the Norwegian village of Idiben, located near the Swedish border, will never forget the last time he saw his father alive. “It happened just before the last summer,” Arnolf recounted. “The lake was about to freeze, and dad went out to fish in the afternoon. He asked me to help him clean the fish when he returns. After three hours we started to worry. The next day, after we found his boat, we realized something terrible had happened.”
Three weeks later, Arnolf’s fears were replaced by pure horror, after finding his father’s corpse buried in the snow, with both his feet cut off.
This was not the only disappearance in the area. In fact, dozens of cases of fishermen failing to return home at the end of the day were recorded in eastern Norway in recent years. The locals attributed the many disappearances to the harsh winter conditions; fierce snowstorms did not leave any hope for finding the bodies. However, the horrible fate of Arnolf Lillehammer’s father, Videkon, made it clear this was a much more sinister affair than previously thought.
The bizarre death was extensively covered by local media and police officials devoted great efforts to solving the mystery, but answers were not forthcoming. However, the Lillehammer family finally received some unexpected help: One clear summer day, a man by the name of Bjorn B. (the full name is being withheld) appeared at the family’s door and presented himself as a Swedish army defector.
The salmon war
Bjorn told the stunned relatives that in the framework of his role as an intelligence officer, he was exposed to the activity of a top secret unit in the Swedish army. The discovery prompted severe pangs of conscience. The moment he read about the Lillehammer family’s tragedy, he knew he would not be able to live with himself if he doesn’t confess to them.
In the 1950s, Bjorn revealed, Sweden faced a sharp decline in pickled salmon exports, mostly because of the growing competition against Norwegian salmon. Secret experiments and taste tests performed by Swedish scientists finally identified the secret ingredient that would give Swedish salmon the edge: One gram of fungus taken from human feet for every 100 grams of gravad lax.
Residents of east Norway villages, known for not changing socks for long months, were therefore an obvious target. And so, Sweden established the Strumpor Stinkande elite unit, responsible for fresh supply of stinky human feet for the Swedish salmon industry.
Senior Swedish military officials are of course rejecting out of hand reports on the existence of the above unit, yet Bjorn B.’s testimonial was further reinforced last week in the Norwegian village of Durknhart. A boy walking by the river found a piece of metal resembling a pin of a military unit sporting an unequivocal symbol – a sock flanked by two wings.
Now all that is left is to see whether the International Court of Justice at The Hague will take up the challenge and probe what appears to be a brutal crime committed by Sweden against the Norwegian people.
Swedish Foreign Ministry’s response
We are stunned by this baseless anti-Swedish report and expect the Israeli government to harshly condemn it. The absence of any condemnation is reminiscent of the Ben Gurion government’s feeble response to Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte’s assassination in Jerusalem in 1948.
