Doc's Talk: Cognitive war by Palestinians and international media is Israel's real problem

Sunday, January 01, 2012

Cognitive war by Palestinians and international media is Israel's real problem

Yochanan Visser, Sharon Shaked

In a recent op-ed for The Jerusalem Post, James Adler wrote that Israel’s real problem isn’t the New York Times reporting or Thomas Friedman. Adler claimed that the real problem are the transparent fallacies put forth by current Israeli hasbara (public diplomacy).

Adler’s article was an example of the pot calling the kettle black, as he committed one big fallacy in his description of the Arab Israeli conflict.

He also didn’t mention the endless stream of distortions and blatant lies about the conflict issued by Palestinian leaders on an almost daily basis. This propaganda is part of a cognitive war against Israel and the participation of international media like the New York Times and foreign commentators in that war, is Israel's real problem.

Abbas

Take for example this historical revision by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in an op-ed for the New York Times in May 2011.

Abbas wrote at the time:

"It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelledPalestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued.

The truth of course is, that Arab forces attacked the Jews as soon as the UN voted in favor of partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. Last week Abbas was caught lying again when he claimed that Hamas had renounced the use of armed resistance against Israel.Speeking to European reporters Abbas said the following about his meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal a month ago:

"We set the agreement's pillars, and Hamas agreed with us that resistance will be popular and adopt peaceful ways, rather than military resistance."

Peaceful resistance?

When Hamas celebrated its 23th anniversary in Gaza, Hamas PM Haniyeh called upon the Muslim Brotherhood to start a war to liberate Jerusalem (Al Quds). He then specified that Jerusalem means East and West and also said the following:

“We affirm that armed resistance is our strategic option and the only way to liberate our land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the River [Jordan]. God willing, Hamas will lead the people… to the uprising until we liberate Palestine, all of Palestine”.

This week Hamas reiterated that it would never give up armed resistance against Israel. Salah al-Bardwil a member of Hamas’ Political Buro said that the issue was never raised in the negotiations between Fatah and Hamas.

Arekat

The lies of Abbas pale in comparison to those of PA chief negotiator Sa’eb Arekat.

In a recent JPost op-ed, hilariously titled ‘The moment of truth’, Arekat asked the Israeli public to support the Palestinian bid for UN admission because, in his words, ”it is a peaceful, positive and collective investment in peace”.

The facts are that other Fatah leaders called this ‘investment in peace’ the beginning of the end of Israel.

Abbas Zaki for example,explained on Lebanon TV about the UN bid that ‘everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end’.

Peace process

Arekat also wrote: “Twenty years of peace process have passed without a conclusion to the conflict. In fact, most Palestinians have witnessed their situation go from bad to worse in the past two decades, while Israel enjoys unprecedented economic growth and prosperity”.

In reality the conflict could have be concluded in 2000 during the Camp David summit. Instead Arafat launched a preplanned terror war. As a result, the Palestinian economy collapsed. Current PA president Mahmoud Abbas had another chance to end the conflict in 2008. However, he never responded to Olmert’s final offer to establish a state on 98,5 % of the territories conquered in the 1967 Six Day War.

Arekat knows very well that the real unprecedented economic growth over the last five years took place in the Palestinian Authority. This happened after Israel removed restrictions in the West Bank, and prime minister Salam Fayad started to deal with the widespread corruption in the PA.

Prime example

A prime example of how Arekat gets caught in his own lies is this claim: “the settlements, wall and related infrastructure now de facto control almost half of the West Bank”.

A month ago Ha’aretz published an interview with Arekat in which he said that he was in the possession of aerial evidence showing that the settlements have been built on approximately 1,1% of the West Bank. .That interview was meant to make the case for an Israeli withdrawal behind the pre-1967 lines

In a 2002 New York Times op-ed Arekat wrote that a two state solution was already impossible and claimed that settlements occupied 42% of the West Bank.

Of course the 1,1% figure mentioned in the Ha’aretz article was the right one.

Adler’s fallacies

James Adler even outstripped Arekat when he discussed the history of Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

Adler: “Palestinians had lived throughout Palestine as 98 % of the population for many centuries before 1948. In contrast Israel ”.only recently settled the West Bank, outside her internationally recognized bounderies

The facts are that Jews have lived continuously in Judea and Samaria ( West Bank) in places like Jerusalem and Hebron long before any Palestinian Arab settled there. Many of these communities were destroyed by Arab violence before 1948

Furthermore, Palestinians may have lived as a large majority in Ottoman Palestine, but many of them weren’t Arabs. Also many Palestinian Arabs (up to 40%) were immigrants from other Arab countries, others were descendants of Jews who were forced to .convert to Islam

.As for the 'internationally recognized bounderies', these were the 1949 armistice lines and no international recognized borders.

The Truth

It is the Arab propaganda and not Israel's public diplomacy that is based on transparent fallacies. This, together with the undeniable fact that a significant part of the international media and community is buying this propaganda without any fact checking, is one of the main reasons why the Arab Israeli conflict lingers on.

By using lies, distortions and doublespeak directed at the international community the Palestinian leaders have succeeded to turn the tables on Israel.

Its real intentions become clear by the unilateral moves, its boycott policy towards Israel and the reconciliation with Hamas but .outside Israel nobody seems to care

Self- proclaimed friends and advisors like James Adler only encourage Palestinian intransigence by their one sided and distorted views and their eagerness to put Israel to task for the failures of the Palestinians.

If they really want to contribute to the solution of the conflict they could start to heed the late Senator Moynihan's admonition that ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinion but that no one is entitled to their own facts’.

Yochanan Visser, Director Missing Peace Middle East News, writer of ' Israel indicted' a recently published book about the cognitive war against Israel (Dutch language) www.missingpeace.eu

Sharon Shaked Arab affairs research Missing Peace, holds a BA Islam and Mid East studies from Hebrew University

2 comments:

DanS. said...: How do you make peace with " al-wala' wa'l-bara' " ? and the excuse in 1947 was.......

the masses are as*es.; 7:55 PM
Historyscoper said...: It's not about the Palestinians, it's about the hard left, who have decided to exterminate Israel prior to toppling the U.S. Hence their agitprop trashes Israel and the U.S. at the same time, and connects them in a smear campaign.

Too bad, they're NUTS, because the U.S. is the world's shining arsenal of freedom, and Israel is the Middle East's shining beacon of freedom. If they would disappear the world would enter a new Dark Ages, and the survivors wouldn't like it one bit.

Start 2012 right by scoping the history of Israel, Islam, etc. free in your browser with the Historyscoper and learning the facts that let you fight back:

http://historyscoper.com; 9:25 PM

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk