NEIGHBORHOOD BULLY'S CHECKPOINT ATTACKS DRIVER

                              A screenshot from a cartoon published on the Facebook page of the Fatah movement

Why is so much left out of reporting about Israel at the same time that these stories spread around the world as big news?

It looks like it just happened again: a car-ramming attack. There have been over 80 such attacks in Israel in the past five years. It’s a terror method that has been copied by ISIS.

 

Associated Press wire service doesn’t discuss the frequency of these attacks on Israelis or the praise and rewards Palestinian leadership gives to attackers. Instead, reports describe Israeli border guards shooting a young man, who his relatives say, was just driving to a wedding.

 

For some reason, the stories also include mention of ongoing discussion about “annexing” Israeli towns in the West Bank.

 

So far, only the Israeli and Jewish press has reported that there is a relevant video made prior to the incident by Ahmed Erekat in which he describes “shame” at being accused of collaborating with Israel and bringing “dishonor” to his family.

 

News stories don’t mention that about a month ago there was a car ramming at this same spot. After the crash the perpetrator jumped out of his car and stabbed a soldier.  

 

CNN headlines their story: “Video Shows Palestinian Man Shot at Israeli Checkpoint.” Yet you can see in the video that there is a line of cars at a standstill when Erekat carefully pulls out far to the left side of the road and then turns the car sharply to the right speeding directly into a guard, sending her flying through the air. It sure looks like a deliberate car ramming.

 

Erekat was running toward the guards when he was shot. Though medical help arrived within minutes, he didn’t survive. The border guard, Shani Or Hama Kodesh was injured and taken to the hospital and is recovering. She said Erekat looked her in the eye and aimed for her, a detail that can be found in the Times of Israel and other Israeli news sites. But not, for instance, at Sky News that labels the event “Israeli Guard Kills Relative of Top PLO Negotiator Saeb Erakat.”    

 

Rutgers University professor Noura Erakat has been posting on Twitter that her “young cousin” is a victim of “dehumanization.” She is a well-known anti-Israel speaker who advocates for the end of the Jewish state.    Her posts are praised and supported by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib.

 

I call it the Frame of the Neighborhood Bully.  Regardless of current actions or recorded history, the bully is always in the wrong, as Bob Dylan described in his song about Israel in 1983. If there is any conflict, the stronger party, even though vastly outnumbered is always at fault no matter the circumstances.

 

In more academic terminology, Israel is considered the oppressor in every situation. The rhetoric of victim and oppressor gets in the way of even attempting to see events here clearly.

 

Of course this does not mean that Israel is always right, either. Rather, it means there is little room for reasoned discussion of what happens in Israel.

 

The journalists I’ve quoted may or may not be promoting their own views of Israel. But they are presenting the news in a predictable format, one in which getting at all the facts is subordinate to following an expected storyline.

 

                                          published atTimes of Israel

To My US Senator Who Opposes the US Peace Plan

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I am writing in response to your recent letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu. I’m one of your constituents who voted for you in numerous elections, a Cal State professor emerita now living in Tel Aviv. My book, Framing Israel is based on analyzing public discourse about Israel.

I know you’ve visited Israel and are familiar with its geography, history, and its many negotiated and unilateral peace offers. Yet you write that you are “hopeful” for the Palestinian Authority and Israel to “come to the negotiating table to reach an agreement so that our shared goal of two states, living side-by-side in peace and prosperity, can be realized.” Certainly, you’re aware that no Palestinian leader has advocated for “living side-by-side in peace” with Israel.  

On the contrary, the Palestinian Authority continues to celebrate and fund terror attacks on Israeli civilians and the Hamas government continues to target Israelis with incendiary devices and rockets.  Even when Israel unilaterally left Gaza in 2005 hoping for “peace and prosperity” for Palestinians and Israelis, Hamas took over in a coup creating a dictatorship that spends billions on terror. Palestinian leaders have not asked for peace with Israel but for its disappearance.  

Now there is another, new proposed peace plan offered by the US. The Palestinian Authority has rejected it sight unseen. That Israel is preparing to put into practice a small part of that plan does not preclude future negotiations or agreements.

Your letter doesn’t indicate why you think that extending Israeli law to the Israeli citizens who live in Area C, the area designated by the Oslo Accords as fully under Israeli control, will negatively impact future peace talks. Nor does your letter note that the Palestinian cities (Areas A and B) will remain under Palestinian control. Calling this an “annexation” may be popular but it is also misleading, for the area in question does not belong to any country other than Israel.

You write of your “fear” for what will happen to “Israel’s national security and diplomatic relationships.” On first reading, I thought this sounded a bit threatening. But your letter begins by congratulating the Prime Minister and Defense Minister on Israel’s new unity government, the government that plans to follow through with extending sovereignty to the area in question. So, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that if Israel’s elected parliament and the majority of Israelis do not share your fears, perhaps you need not worry either.

Sincerely,

Cherryl Smith, PhD

Martinez, CA and Tel Aviv, Israel

                                                                                                               Published in Times of Israel

Coronavirus Advice for All from Geriatric Medicine

                                                      published in Times of Israel

Israel took early steps toward slowing the transmission of Covid-19 and according to a Hong Kong-based statistical study it is the safest country to be in during the pandemic. Israel’s percentage of deaths per number of people infected is one of the lowest in the world.  Nevertheless, we have had more than 80 people die in which coronavirus played a role and we have over 10,000 known cases of coronavirus so far.

Our very strict rules that allow for leaving home only to get groceries or medicine or to be outside for a short time within 100 meters of one’s home have helped to limit the spread of the virus. With the exception of essential services, most people are working from home or are not working. There’s no visiting friends or relatives even during the Pesach holiday and, starting next week, we cannot go outside without wearing a mask. Certainly no gyms or pools are open; beaches are off limits; and long hikes and bicycle rides are not an option, at least not in the urban areas where 70% of Israelis live.

Yet, according to specialists in geriatrics, exercise should not be thought of as something optional; it is not simply recreation, conditioning, and good for one’s frame of mind. It is basic hygiene. This is because moderate exercise has a positive effect on one’s immune system, which is made up of cells and antibodies that protect us from invading microorganisms. When our immune system is weak, our bodies are less able to fight off harmful pathogens such as bacteria, parasites, and viruses.

A basic principle of geriatric medicine is to help patients move and remain active to the extent that is possible for a particular individual. Patients who need time in rehabilitation hospitals are not only recovering from medical procedures and illnesses but are also recovering from prolonged periods of immobilization. Getting the patient moving is a significant part of the health plan.

Those of us who are relatively healthy may find ourselves becoming less resistant to disease if we drastically limit our physical movement. The best advice during “stay-at-home” is to let go of our usual concepts of exercise in which we need the gym, open space, a swimming pool, a team sport, or exercise equipment. When we’re stuck at home we need to keep our immune systems strong and even to make them stronger. 

This can mean daily stretching, jogging in place, walking up and down stairs, putting on music and dancing along, doing yoga, sit-ups, jumping jacks, pilates, push-ups, or walking around the house. Following any of the hundreds of exercise videos on YouTube can help. Exercise that is also utilitarian counts too: the everyday bending and stretching of house cleaning, rearranging furniture, doing home repairs, gardening, and so on. The key is movement even while we are “locked down.”

Interestingly, while there is medical evidence that moderate exercise builds up the immune system, such evidence does not exist for vitamin supplements. Of course, if one has a particular vitamin deficiency or if one’s diet lacks any of the food groups--dairy, meat, some grains, fruits, or vegetables--supplements can be necessary.

We know that the psychological toll of begin stuck at home is helped by trying to exercise to the extent one can within the limits of one’s physical condition and the space available. But more than that, it may be essential toward fending off viruses.

Medical information provided by Jerrold Schwartz, MD, former medical director of Bridgewater Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing in Binghamton, New York and currently a physician with Sharan Medical Care at Home in Bnai Brak.

The Ongoing War In France

                                                                                            
                                                                                                                published at Times of Israel

President Hollande has closed the borders of France. Such a thing has not happened since World War II. The borders were sealed to make sure that none of the terrorists got away, although the police said Friday night that all of these terrorists had been killed.

The borders were also sealed and "checkpoints reinstated" because the President of France has decided to try to keep out other potential terrorists.

About one hundred and fifty people were murdered at six different Paris locations in France's worst experience of terror attacks. On Friday evening these people were sitting in cafes, watching a soccer match, attending a rock concert, or simply enjoying life in the beautiful city of Paris.  In a split second their lives were destroyed by suicide bombers, grenade throwers, and by the gunfire of terrorists shouting "Allahu Akbar." Hundreds more in Paris are injured and of course thousands are traumatized.

President Obama, offering US support and sympathy, said that the terrorists must be "brought to justice." President Hollande managed to say "we know who they are" without saying who they are.

Paris's terror, like the terror of 9/11, the London tube bombings, the Mumbai attacks, and the ongoing nearly daily violence against Israelis, is part of a global war.

Yet, every time an Islamist terror attack occurs--except in Israel where it is acknowledged that Hamas, Hezbollah, and even "lone wolf" kids abusively raised to kill infidels, are perpetuating terror--there is reluctance to name the perpetrators, to acknowledge that their goal is to destroy, to murder, and ultimately to take over.

As the events unfolded no mainstream media site nor political leader (that I heard) used the term "Islamist terror" even though there was never any doubt that these were Islamist attacks.  ISIS was all over social media praising the killings.

Now ISIS (Daesh) has claimed responsibility. President Hollande has announced "three days of national mourning" and said this:

"Faced with war, the country must take appropriate action...France will be merciless towards these barbarians from Daesh."

I hope that there is no call for "all sides" to quell the violence or for Hollande not to engage in rhetoric that will "inflame tensions."

And if the French do respond to the murder of innocents, I hope that the free world will help them (regardless of their various faults) rather than mistake them for the perpetrators.

Twisting Words About Attacks in Israel

                                                                                                             published at Jews Down Under

Common words and phrases are losing their meaning in reference to the terror wave in Israel. These obfuscations often start with political leaders and then are spread by media. A good guide to whether you are getting an unbiased report will be to notice if key words still keep their common meanings, or if, instead, odd usage directs readers and viewers toward minimizing or even justifying terrorism against Israelis.

Light or moderate wounds:  normally describes the level of injuries someone has sustained.

Referring to Israelis, now suggests that the danger was minimal.

Every day for the past two weeks, in some cases nearly every hour, Jewish Israelis have been the victims of stabbing or shooting attacks. Or of cars purposely rammed into people standing at bus stops.

Every one of these attacks is an attempted murder. This is true even when the victim manages to fight off the terrorist or stumbles away with only light or moderate wounds. All of the victims of terror who are injured and taken to hospitals are alive only because the terrorist failed at his or her goal of killing Jews.

The terms, "attempted murder" or "terrorist attack" do not seem to be applied to attempted murders and terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Jews.

Alleged:  normally indicates some possibility that there was no attack or that the individual apprehended was not an attacker.

Regarding terror against Israelis, now indicates that what we are seeing did not happen.

Dozens of people witness these events, and often the perpetrator has explicitly stated his or her intention to murder Jews. Although Jews have in fact been attacked, and the perpetrator has been stopped in the act of attacking, the word, "alleged" is included apparently to raise doubt about what really occurred. The effort to suggest that no security response is needed shows up even when there is video that allows viewers (and reporters) to see the terrorist in action.

Executed: Normally means that someone was summarily killed.

Now describes an attacker who was wounded by Israeli security and is at this moment alive and being interviewed.  Can also be used to suggest that live ammunition is inappropriate for use by Israeli security under any circumstances.

An Arab woman is shouting and wielding a knife at a bus station; she refuses to put down the knife after repeated requests by security who start clearing the area of civilians. She keeps the knife in her hand raised over her head and eventually an officer stops her by firing at her leg. She is rushed to an Israeli hospital and this is described as "an execution."

A young teen goes on a stabbing spree and is shot at in the process. He is rushed to the hospital where he is sitting up eating lunch and being interviewed. He says that he set out to kill Jews while Mahmoud Abbas gives a televised speech declaring that the boy was "executed." 

Resulting deaths: Normally refers to the number of people who have been killed by terrorists.

Now does not distinguish between victims and their murderers.

Rumors: The common term for unsubstantiated claims.

Now presented as justification for any kind of terrorism against Israelis.

For months, the false rumor rumor has been spread by Palestinian leaders, Muslim Imams, and Palestinian Authority teachers, that Jews will be allowed to pray at the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. Even the US State department said this and then had to issue a retraction. The "status quo" agreement the State of Israel made with Jordan in 1967 has never changed and isn't changing. News articles do not describe (or show curiosity about) this unusual arrangement but suggest that a rumor is simply a reason to take up guns or knives or cinder blocks and start trying to kill Israelis.

No one was harmed: Normally means that a harmful situation was diffused or stopped before anyone was hurt.

The now familiar, revised meaning suggests that attacks against Israelis are only harmful if a civilian is killed.

Long before the current round of Palestinian terror, the Hamas government of Gaza had been firing rockets into Israel. The press rarely mentions these rockets until there is an Israeli response. Every rocket fired into Israel is intended to harm civilians, and does harm them by terrorizing anyone in the area, by traumatizing families who have seconds to find a bomb shelter, as well as by injuring children and adults.

In the current terror wave, there is not even the 15 to 60 second siren warning. Only the sirens of ambulances.

Israel's Disappearing Ongoing Terror Wave

                                                                           
                                                                                                         published at Honest Reporting

A week into the ongoing wave of terror against Israeli Jews, it has become nearly impossible to learn -- from major news sources outside Israel -- what is going on in Israel.

The terror wave itself is becoming invisible. Many reports minimize the hundreds of attacks against Israelis. Some suggest that attempting to stop a terrorist should be seen as the same thing as being a terrorist; other coverage depicts any Israeli defensive measures in such a way these will appear to cause the violence.

In a recent CNN report, terror against Israelis has disappeared. A video captioned "spiral of violence grips the Middle East" tells of Palestinians throwing "rocks and marbles" against "tanks and tear gas." Israel's Prime Minister is described as "stern and contentious" in contrast to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas who "doesn't want the situation to escalate."

Readers would never know that Abbas and Palestinian officials have been "waging an unprecedented campaign of incitement against Israel" in what Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh describes as "calls for murder."

An Associated Press story in US News and World Report purports to be a timeline of "latest developments in the ongoing tensions between Palestinians and Israelis" but these tensions usually turn out to be that a Palestinian was stopped after killing or trying to kill an Israeli. Like many other stories, this one leads with the "shooting and wounding" of a Palestinian and then mentions that the "motorist" was trying to run over people at a checkpoint.

Similarly, BBC  writes "Israeli-Palestinian violence spreads over Gaza" which in itself is inaccurate since the Gaza government has taken credit for some of the attacks in Israel. These include what Hamas has praised as "the heroric terror attack," the murder of Eitam and Na'ama Henkin, a Tel Aviv University doctoral student and his wife who was a graphic designer, shot to death in their car in front of their four children.

The article claiming that "violence" is moving from Israel into Gaza has it backwards. Rockets have been fired in recent days from Gaza into Israel and violent rioters  from Gaza attempted to cross into Israel. BBC's "analysis" piece describes a "sudden and sharp escalation of violence" equating attacks on civilians with the attempt to prevent such attacks.

And as the reporting on the terror wave disappears, the terrorists are provided with a more sympathetic treatment than the Israeli victims of terror.

Why Don't We Hear About the Fate of Palestinians?

As of this May, 2,770 Palestinians had been killed since the start of the civil war in Syria. But when Palestinians there sought refuge in Palestinian controlled Gaza and the West Bank, PA President Mahmoud Abbas turned them down. He said, "It's better that they die in Syria than that they give up their right of return [to Israel]."

In Arab countries, Palestinians are subject to apartheid laws such as the ones in Lebanon that prevent them from working in many professions including medicine, law, engineering, and accounting. This stands in sharp contrast to Israel where all professions are open and Arab-Israelis are also Supreme Court justices and Knesset members.

While the Arab/Palestinian population in Israel is constantly growing, Palestinians have been and are being expelled from Arab countries in which they have lived for years.

In the 1990's, 200,000 Palestinians were forced to leave Kuwait.

In Iraq, only 6,000 out of 25,000 Palestinians are left. According to the head of the Palestinian League in Iraq, Thamer Meshainesh, militias routinely attack Palestinians as part of an organized plan to get them to leave the country.

Khaled Abu Toameh writes:

...when it comes to ethnic cleansing and torture of Palestinians in Arab countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the Palestinian leadership chooses to look the other way.

Similarly, the international media seems to have forgotten that there are tens of thousands of Palestinians living in various Arab countries. The only Palestinians that Western journalists know and care about are those living in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

Toameh's report this week, "The Secret Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians" is startling because media tell us so little about Palestinians in the Arab world.

If Israel can't be blamed, there seems to be no interest in what happens to Palestinians.

Israel in Nepal--No Good Deed Goes Uncriticized

                                                                                        photo credit: gagaforIsrael

The IDF-led team from Israel rushed to Nepal and within 12 hours of landing in Katmandu had set up a working field hospital and had begun search and rescue operations. In fact, Israel’s team of doctors, nurses, trauma specialists, and disaster relief experts is the second largest in Nepal, with an on-the-ground crew of 260.

India has sent a team of 450; the next largest is from the US with 128. Not that it is a competition. But neither is it a public relations stunt--in spite of what you may read in some reporting.

Israel has become a world leader in disaster response and humanitarian relief efforts and shares its expertise generously wherever it is needed, as it did during crises in Turkey, Haiti, Japan, and elsewhere. In Nepal so far, Israeli doctors have treated hundreds of injured Nepalese, have delivered babies, and have performed several hundred surgeries.  

Their hospital cares for at least 200 people a day. They even brought a group of “hospital clowns” who work in Israeli hospitals to spend time with Nepalese children.  They have delivered 700 tons of medical equipment and supplies. The state of Israel has “adopted” a village that was destroyed by the earthquake and is working with the Nepalese government to rebuild the entire village.

And yet, Israel’s humanitarian effort in Nepal provokes negative media response. Daniel Gordis summarizes here.

But the good news, and the best argument against the criticism, is that Israel will continue helping around the world regardless of the press it receives.

Iran Deal -- Red Flags

                                                                                                                   Investers.com cartoons

It is hard to believe that when faced with the obvious problems of the Iran “deal,” the most powerful country in the world just gives in.

Here is a top 10 of Iran agreement red flags:

10.“Death to America”

Apparently it is out of fashion to take literally the words of world leaders, the same leaders with whom you are negotiating about nuclear weapons, words they keep repeating, shouting and loudly encouraging others to believe, the words of rulers for whom “death to America” is a goal, an agenda. If someone states clearly and repeatedly that he hates you and wants to kill you, why would you help him to more firepower?

9.  Destroying Israel is “Non-negotiable”

The familiar talk of wiping Israel off the map has continued, even escalated, during discussion of Iran’s nuclear program.  And if we doubt the literal nature of these words, or imagine that they are simply bluster, we need only notice the way Iran’s actions are consistent with these threats:

8. Iran arms Hezbollah.

7. Iran arms West Bank terror groups and pays terrorists’ salaries.

6. Iran arms Hamas and builds terror tunnels.

5. At the same time, Iran backs militias in Yemen, in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in Syria.

4. Iran has not been required to stop any of its terrorist activities.

3. Whatever else Iran’s leaders say, they say clearly that they intend to become the one dominant, ruling, and Islamist power in the Middle East.

2. The deal isn’t really a deal, anyway. If the intention had been to stop Iran’s nuclear program, it is a failure. There’s nothing in the agreement that does this. In fact, even if the intention had been to slow down the program, it is a failure, for it doesn’t do this, either, as there is no guarantee of inspections.

1. Iran is already the biggest sponsor of terror in the world, making it the most dangerous place in the world for nuclear weapons.

Looks like the negotiators ignored the red flags and raised a white one.

Letting the Iranian Ayatollahs Slide

“When the Supreme Leader of Iran is continuing, in the middle of these negotiations…to make statements like 'death to America,' how is that not problematic for you? …why are you just willing to let that, let it slide, basically, and you are holding the prime minister of Israel to comments that he made and has since changed?”

In her non-direct answer to Matt Lee’s question, State Department spokesperson, Jen Psaki seemed to enact the very problem the AP reporter had just identified:

“…our relationship with Israel is abiding; it’s strong; it’s a security relationship; it’s one that we’re committed to. Do we have disagreements on some issues, like how we should proceed with preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? Yes. Have we – can we – do we believe that it isn’t possible to just forget what the prime minister says when it’s conflicting with past precedent and past policy for some time? Yes…”

Lee tried to get Psaki to talk about the contrast between reaction to the words of an ally talking, during a heated, democratic election, about his country’s situation vs non-reaction to words like “death to America” spoken by leaders of the country currently negotiating--with the US--for nuclear weapons. But Psaki continued in the same vein:

“…even if there is a deal, it doesn’t mean we let slide or forget, whether it’s the comments or more important the actions – state sponsor of terrorism, their human rights record…But we also feel that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is not only in our interests, it’s in the interests of the international community…”

The implication here seems to be that negotiating with Iran about their nuclear weapons program is disconnected from considering or responding to their leaders’ words and actions. This seems to leave us simply ignoring the plain meaning of their words.  

By contrast, although Netanyahu clarified, or changed, his last minute campaign statement, the Israeli leader’s words apparently are always relevant.  Except when they are not, as in: we don’t accept his clarification.

   

A day after the election, Netanyahu reiterated that he continues to hold the same views as those he has expressed since his speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009.  There, he voiced his support for a demilitarized Palestinian state next door to the Jewish state, whereas in the last moments of the campaign, in what seems to have been a ploy to get votes away from some of the smaller parties, he contradicted this position. 

Politicians’ electioneering aside, journalist Matt Lee raises an important question. 

How is it that even while they are directly calling for the destruction of the US, Iranian leaders are not to be criticized or taken at their word, yet any statement by the freely elected prime minster of Israel, a close American ally, is under continual, negative scrutiny?

At the same time, Netanyahu’s consistent and persistent warnings about Iran’s nuclear program may be in the process of being ignored.  The upcoming “deal” has been described by an Israeli official as an “incomprehensibly” bad agreement that leaves thousands of centrifuges in place and puts no restraints on Iranian backed terrorism.