Automotive Deals Summer Reading Shop Women's Clothing Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis STEM Water Sports STEM
Customer Discussions > History forum

A Place for Pro Israel posters II

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1401-1425 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jun 3, 2012 7:59:59 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
unday, June 3, 2012
Bringer - Stealing Their Way to Statehood - Part 5
Gil Bringer..
03 June '12..

This is Part V of a meticulously researched article that describes in detail how Bedouins of the Jordan Valley are used by the Palestinian Authority to take over territory in Area C surreptitiously.

Read Part I here.
Read Part II here.
Read Part III here.
Read Part IV here.

Eighth Stop: A School as an Outpost

In the year 2009 the residents of Kfar-Adumim served a petition against the construction of the Italian regional school that was in the process of being built below their town. The school was intended for the children of the Bedouin tribes that had settled in different outposts in the area and is located right on Route 1. It serves not only the local people: the PA subsidizes transportation for students who live in more distant locations. It seems that here too, the PA endeavors to create facts on the ground using the Bedouin settlements and is willing to spend money towards that goal. The school that was created in that location is not a means to an end - it is a goal in and of itself, which is a declaration of sovereignty on the area.

A demolition order that was issued regarding the place years ago was never implemented, and this, despite the proximity of the school to a main traffic artery and its location in a firing zone, facts that were supposed to have propelled it to the highest priority for implementation. But these are, of course, exactly the same facts why the PA so much wants to leave the school right where it is.

In the year 2010, the court received the position of the civil authority, according to which the school was not to have been not be destroyed until the end of the school year. This, despite the existence of a school nearby in Abu-Dis, which transports children daily from the surrounding area to the school in Han al-Ahmar, and can accommodate all the students of the (Italian) school. The court determined that the school must not be destroyed until the end of June.

June was over and July arrived. August and September passed as well. Again and again the Prosecutor asked for more time to obtain additional approvals for the demolition of the school, approvals that apparently were impossible to obtain while waiting passively until the end of the school year.

In October, the state requested thirty additional days and in the background was the bustle of students returning for the new school year. In November, the officer in charge of coordination of activities in the territories announced that the demolition tender had progressed considerably and had actually passed every phase except for the signature of the Minister of Security. The minister was supposed to sign the permit for the demolition by the end of 2011, the prosecutor declared to the court.

In February of 2012, the prosecutor explained that because of a "technical problem" the document was not brought to the minister of security for his signature. The prosecutor requested 45 additional days. At exactly the same time that the prosecutor served his request for an additional postponement in order to fix the "technical problem", the newspaper "Haaretz" published the information that General Dangot, who is responsible for coordination of activities in the territories, visited the outpost Han al-Ahmar and announced to the residents that he has no intention to demolish the school. These things are consistent with messages that were transmitted by the people of the administration to the residents of Kfar Adumim, who told "Makor Rishon", that the administration is not interested in demolishing the illegally built school.

In a conversation with the spokesman of the coordinator of activities in the territories, we asked to understand how the response of the prosecutor, according to which only a "technical problem" held up the signature of the minister of security on the confirmation to demolish the building, sits with the words of Dangot himself, who, according to the announcements, is not at all interested in demolishing the building.

In a verbal conversation, the spokesman claimed that the details that were published regarding Dangot in "Haaretz" are not accurate. We asked to know what, nevertheless, Dangot said to the people of Han al-Ahmar, and then the spokesman asked us to send him an email. The email was sent to the correct address but did not merit a response. We assumed that apparently there was a "technical problem" that seemed to revolve around the issue of Han al-Ahmar. At the request of the spokesman, an email was sent again but since then there has been no trace of him. Not an email nor the spokesman. One can only assume that another "technical problem" was responsible.

Meanwhile, in the PA there are no technical problems. Fiyad decided, of course, to take the Bedouin school fully under his auspices, and in the ceremony of tribute that was held last May (2011) Fiyad came to the outpost to congratulate his people.

"You Bedouins are the guardians of the land", said Fiyad to the residents. "Your persistence in having your children learn in this modest school, that was built by an Italian organization, is a sign of hope for us all. In my visit to the village there is a strong message for the freedom of my people, and for the establishment of a Palestinian state in which the rights of our people will be maintained. In the name of the Palestinian Authority, which aspires in the near future to be the Palestinian state, we call on the international authorities and organizations to protect the rights of the Palestinians."

This is the final installment of "Stealing Their Way to Statehood".

Next Week: "Double Standards in Judea and Samaria" by Gil Bringer, Part I

Gil Bringer is an attorney who serves as the legal consultant to the Jewish Home faction in the Knesset and co-editor of the "Tzedek" legal supplement to the "Makor Rishon" Hebrew weekly newspaper. Among other things, he deals with the areas of overlap between law and politics, Zionism and good governance. He can be contacted at

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav

Source:Makor Rishon weekly Hebrew newspaper;

Posted on Jun 3, 2012 8:06:55 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
(Vide photos online)

Sunday, June 3, 2012
CAMERA - The Week in Flubbed Photos, Captions
03 June '12..

The last few days have produced several sloppy and erroneous photo captions and incorrect photo selections. First, from the New York Times, or what some consider the "Paper of Record," there's this:

While the caption refers to the buildings as "a Jewish settlement near Jerusalem," the reality is that the pictured homes are in Jerusalem. Specifically, they are the neighborhood of Har Homa, which is in the part of Jerusalem located over the Green Line and annexed to the capital city after 1967. As a result, Palestinians consider it a settlement, while Israelis consider it a Jerusalem neighborhood. Whether you call Har Homa a settlement or neighborhood, the fact remains that it lies in, not near, Jerusalem. (See, for instance, this B'Tselem map.) Recently, the New York Times' Isabel Kershner correctly referred to "Har Homa, a Jewish development across the 1967 lines in southeast Jerusalem" (April 5, 2012)

The original AFP caption correctly identifies the homes as Har Homa, but tendentiously sides with the Palestinian terminology (and is vague as to Har Homa's location with respect to Jerusalem):

Palestinian shepherd Abu Shadad herds sheep near Jerusalem as the Jewish settlement known to Israelis as Har Homa and to Palestinians as Jabal Abu Ghneim is seen in the background April 25, 2012. Har Homa is a terraced suburb of neat, white-stoned apartments housing 13,000 Israelis that overlooks the biblical town of Bethlehem. Of all the obstacles blocking the way to peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, the status of Jerusalem is arguably the most intractable.

Moving on to what some call the "New York Times of Israel," Ha'aretz's English edition has a couple of photo caption flubs in recent days. Friday, there was this important story about the smuggling of Russian-made SA-24 shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles into the Gaza Strip, which was accompanied by this photograph:

Does that look like a shoulder-launched missile to you? Here is a photograph (from Army Recognition) of the real SA-24 missile, which is shoulder-launched:

And, finally, in today's Ha'aretz there this stand alone photograph:

Except that this photo was taken on Friday. It was taken on Wednesday, May 30, as the original Reuters photograph indicates, which raises the question: why does a photograph of a minor skirmish deserve space four days later? This wouldn't be the first time that Ha'aretz mislabeled a photograph of Israeli forces making an arrest as more recent than it actually was, thereby falsely boosting its news relevance. (And, according to Ynet, this activist was arrested after he attacked several soldiers, information which would have been helpful for readers' understanding of the events.)


Posted on Jun 3, 2012 8:09:06 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
Part 1

Sunday, June 3, 2012
Fresnozionism - If I do not defend myself, who will defend me?
02 June '12..

Even among events of some of the darkest days in recent history, this story stands out. Not so much because so many people stood by and did nothing - that's happening today in Syria, and seems to happen every few months somewhere in the world - but because so many `enlightened' nations actively cooperated in making it happen.

No one writes like Sarah Honig, and the following isn't easy to read, even if you are familiar with the events described. But please read it to the end. Read the last sentence. Several times. (h/t: GR)

Lessons from the floating coffin
By Sarah Honig

February 24, 2012

Exactly 70 years ago - on February 24, 1942 - 19-year-old David Stoliar terrifyingly clung to bobbing debris in the Black Sea. At first he heard screams in the frigid waters but the voices died down. It eventually emerged that Stoliar was the sole survivor of the Struma, an un-seaworthy vessel chuck-full of frantic Jewish refugees.

World War II was already in fever pitch. Against the enormity of the then-unfolding Holocaust, the loss at sea of 768 Jewish lives (103 of them babies and children) was at most blithely overlooked as a marginal annotation.

Moreover, although these Jews fled the Nazis, in the pedantic literal sense they weren't executed by Third Reich henchmen.

This atrocity was the coldblooded handiwork of Great Britain (committed while it combated the Germans but remarkably without compassion for their Jewish victims), supposedly neutral Turkey (whose so-called nonalignment didn't extend to outcast Jewish refugees), by the Arabs (who were openly and unreservedly Nazism's avid collaborators and who pressured London into denying endangered Jews asylum in the Jewish homeland) and, finally, by the Russians (who targeted the immobilized sardine can that carried Jews to whom nobody would allow a toehold on terra firma).

The entire world seemed united in signaling Jews how utterly unwanted they were anywhere.

Such apathy-cum-enmity hasn't disappeared. Only its form and context had mutated but the essence is still ultra-relevant to the Jewish state. We're still threatened with annihilation. Nonetheless, unmistakable harangues from Tehran notwithstanding, the international community worries about an Israeli preemptive strike - not a genocidal strike against Israel.

To put it plainly, our fate today interests other nations just about as much as the fate of the Struma's Jews did back then, which (to resort to understatement) was hardly much.

Today's disingenuous post-Holocaust lip-service is invariably accompanied by hand-wringing about lack of foreknowledge of Germany's fiendish plot to systematically exterminate the defenseless Jewish people (unmistakable harangues from Berlin notwithstanding).

What sets the Struma apart and imbues it with extraordinary significance is that from December 16, 1941, until the afternoon of February 23, 1942, its ordeal was played out before the entire watching but unfeeling world. No country could deny awareness of the impending calamity and yet all countries let it happen in full view.

The Struma, then a 115-year-old Danube cattle barge, was a pitiful peanut-shell of a boat packed with nearly 800 refugees from Romania. Bound for the Land of Israel, they desperately fled Hitler's hell and the horrors of Bucharest's fascist regime. Pogroms and ghastly atrocities had already sullied cities like Iasi, where thousands of Jews were assembled in the market square and mowed down with machine guns. Venerable old rabbis and Jewish community leaders were impaled on meat hooks in town centers.

Posted on Jun 3, 2012 8:13:51 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
Part 2

The Struma wasn't struck suddenly. It was slowly tortured, accentuating with demonic deliberation how disposable Jews were, just when genocide's monstrous machinery was switched into high gear. This 75-day shipboard melodrama underscored the total helplessness and humiliation of Jews without power.

Struma passengers gathered in the Romanian port of Constanza on December 8, 1941. For four days, Romanian customs officials "examined" their belongings. In fact, they pilfered all they saw - clothing, underwear, jewelry and most important, food. The immigrants left on the perilous journey bereft of provisions and medications. But the Struma did carry 30 doctors, 10 engineers and 15 lawyers.

On December 12, the rickety vessel chugged out to sea. After four hair-raising days (instead of the routine 14 hours) the Struma unsteadily dragged itself into Istanbul Harbor. It couldn't continue. Its makeshift motor had sputtered its last. There was no fuel, food or water.

Several passengers held valid entry visas into pre-independent Israel. All others were "illegals." The hope, though, was that once in Turkey, they'd all be allowed to proceed to their destination. After all, with Europe in the throes of war, thousands of Jewish immigration certificates (British Mandate permits) remained unutilized.

But the British authorities refused unequivocally. The Arabs raged and rallied against giving haven to Jewish refugees. Eager to appease pro- Nazi Arab opinion, Britain chillingly declared that under no circumstance could the Struma's human cargo set foot in Eretz Yisrael.

Furthermore, Britain pressured Turkey not to let anyone off the crippled boat at its end either. Obligingly, the Turkish premier argued that "Turkey cannot be expected to serve as a refuge or surrogate homeland for people unwanted anywhere else."

The only extant photo of the willfully condemned Struma
Thus hundreds were imprisoned in narrow, unventilated confines. A sign saying "Help!" was suspended over the Struma's side. One of the visa-holders, who after weeks was allowed ashore, described the boat as a "floating coffin."

The freezing hull below reeked, but there wasn't sufficient room on deck. Refugees took turns to climb up for a breath of air. There was no sleeping space for all, no infirmary, no galley, no bathing or sanitary facilities. Minimal food rations, provided by local Jews, were smuggled aboard after enough Turkish palms were greased.

An official Jewish Agency appeal, forwarded to the British on January 19, 1942, stressed that the Struma transported refugees escaping the most tangible threat of massacre. The Mandatory authorities didn't even dignify the Jewish Agency with a reply.

On the next day, the Struma's 35th in Istanbul, the Wannsee Conference opened in suburban Berlin to formally decide on "the final solution for the Jewish problem." Hitler surely hadn't overlooked this latest demonstration of utter callousness toward hapless Jews.

The British didn't bother to answer ensuing emotional Jewish Agency entreaties on January 30 and February 10. Then they acquiesced to the entry of four visa-holders, who only at this point were permitted to disembark. More news of the dreadful conditions on the Struma now came out.

The new British line was that the Struma's refugees were suspect Nazi agents because they came from enemy territory. The assertion that the Germans' most hideously persecuted victims were their tormenters' spies was labeled "Satanic" in embryonic Israel.

In a very long February 13 communication to the Mandatory government, the Agency noted that Britain was helping with much fanfare to resettle in the Mideast thousands of non-Jews - Greeks, Yugoslavs, Poles and Czechs - all of whom came from German-controlled areas. More than any of them, Jews had reason to be loyal to the Allies.

On February 15, the British announced they'd make an exception in the case of Struma children aged 11 to 16. Wartime rationing was cited as the pretext for barring younger or older kids. The Jewish Agency guaranteed maintenance for all 103 underage Struma captives. In the end no child was freed.

Meanwhile, Turkey, egged on and emboldened by Britain, threatened to tow the floundering deathtrap beyond its territorial waters. The Jewish Agency warned that "the boat is in total state of disrepair and without life-saving equipment. Any sea-journey for this vessel cannot but end in disaster."

The Turkish government, however, pitilessly ordered the condemned Struma tugged out to the Black Sea. Hundreds of truncheon-wielding Turkish policemen were dispatched to the Struma on February 23. They viciously clubbed passengers below deck. Despite resistance from the refugees, the anchor was cut, the Struma was towed out and was left paralyzed, to drift precariously without supplies or a drop of fuel.

On February 24, an explosion ripped it apart.

A Soviet submarine, Shchuka-213, patrolled northeast of the Bosporus. Stalking Axis craft, it torpedoed the wobbly barge, which sank in minutes. It's estimated that as many as 500 were killed outright by the blast. The rest flapped feebly in the waves, till they expired of wounds, fatigue and hypothermia. Stoliar alone hung on, semi-conscious.

In pre-state Israel there was shock and grief. Demonstrations were mounted. For one day all work and commerce were halted and the population imposed a voluntary protest curfew on itself. Posters appeared on exterior walls everywhere bearing British High Commissioner Harold Mac Michael's photo and announcing that he was "Wanted for Murder."

The Struma's heartrending end marked the effective end to most attempts to break Britain's anti-Jewish blockade until the conclusion of WWII. A few fishing and sporting sailboats briefly tried to ferry handfuls of refugees. Some of them were sunk. Europe's Jews had no escape left. Embattled Britain took time out from the war to make sure of it.

Stoliar was imprisoned by the Turks for six weeks for the crime of not drowning. He was finally allowed into Mandated Palestine despite Mac Michael's warnings that "this would open the floodgates" and "completely undermine our whole policy regarding illegal immigrants."

Today, to most Israelis, Struma is a curious street name in a few towns. Israeli school children barely encounter its esoteric story. Politically correct authors and trendy leftwing filmmakers shun the subject, preferring postmodern portrayals of Arab terrorists as Zionism's prey.

Oblivion is perhaps the greatest sin against the Struma but also against ourselves. If we forget the Struma, we forget why this country exists, why we struggle for its survival. We forget the justice of our cause.

Dimmed memory and self-destructive perverse morality hinder our ability to protect ourselves from the offspring and torchbearers of the very Arabs who doomed the Struma. They haven't amended their hostile agenda. We just don't care to be reminded.

The state the Jews created is threatened with destruction and its population with obliteration. Yet there's negligible sympathy for Israel and even less practical support to avert tragedy. The Struma's story is seminal in understanding why the Holocaust was possible and why a second Holocaust cannot be ruled out. More than anything, the Struma powerfully illustrates what happens when Jews rely on others' goodwill.


Posted on Jun 3, 2012 8:19:45 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Haber - "Shut Up" She Explained
Jon Haber..
Divest This!..
02 June '12..

So here's something new and different in BDSland.

By now, some of you may already have heard about the University of Texas Middle East Studies Department that recently canceled a book project that would have included essays from 29 women writing about their experiences living and growing up in the Middle East.

This anthology was meant to honor Elizabeth Fernea, a U of T scholar who had spent decades studying and documenting African and Middle East cultures, who taught at the university until 1999 and passed away in 2008. All was going well with the project (which would have been published by the University of Texas Press) until one of the authors, Huzama Habayeb, discovered that two of those 29 authors were Israeli.

"Foul!" cried Habayeb who insisted that if Israeli women's voices would be included in a book of Middle East women's voices that she wanted no part in the project. "Fine." replied the University, which informed her that her request to have her essay pulled would be honored and that the book would go on without her.

But apparently the press honoring her request was not good enough for Habayab who worked tirelessly over the next several weeks to convince other Arab woman contributing to the volume to also pull out. And the press, which was not about to cave into pressure to censor the Israelis authors, but who could not publish the book with only their contributions, was left with no alternative but to cancel the book entirely.

There was a brief moment when this decision was mistakenly seen as a cave-in by U of T to boycott pressures before calmer voices realized that the university had in fact made the only possible honorable decision (the alternative being to exclude the Israelis at the behest of the boycotting writers). But, as night follows day, this disgraceful episode was being hailed across the "I Hate Israel" multi-verse as the latest great BDS "victory."

Why I describe this story as "new and different" is because until now most BDS stories have fallen into a tight set of distinct categories:

* Actual BDS wins (rare, and usually accomplished via backroom deals cut in the dead of night - such as the Olympia Food Coop);

* BDS failures (much more numerous, often occurring at the very places where BDS activist had previously gotten their way - such as the Presbyterian Church);

* Ambiguous decisions or non-events deliberately portrayed by BDS activists as victories, despite the fact that they are actually BDS hoaxes (such as fraudulent stories of BDS taking place at Hampshire College or at various financial firms)

But the University of Texas story does not fall neatly into any of these categories. If a boycott is meant to describe an institution (like the university) agreeing or acceding to BDS demands that Israelis be excluded from a project or program, then in this case the school clearly refused such an exclusion. But a book that would have included both Arab and Israeli voices is not being published due to activist pressures, which means the boycotters did achieve a result that included the silencing of Israelis, but only by forcing all voices (including their own) be silenced as well.

In order to accomplish such a "victory," Habayeb also had to not just renege on a promise made to the university, but work tirelessly to ensure other authors also broke their word in an astounding organized breach of academic protocol, all in service of the alleged "higher ethics" demanded by the principles of BDS. All so a book created to honor a woman who spent her life helping the voices of Third World women be heard got sent to the shredder rather than the book store.

Years ago, a UN report on cultural underdevelopment in the Middle East highlighted the fact that the number of foreign books translated and published in the Arab Middle East over the last century totals less than the number of translated books published in Spain in a single year. While there are a number of measures that can be used to determine the strength or weakness of a society other than book publishing, the ability of members of those societies to celebrate the stilling of unheard voices (including their own) does not bode well for the future.


In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 9:51:09 AM PDT
William B says:

Yet another reason that I will not contribute to UT alumni activities. Mansour O. El-Kikhia, chairman of the political science department at the University of San Antonio is another.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 7:22:37 AM PDT
William B says:
Just ran across this:

Dual Citizenship Generally Allowed After U.S. Naturalization

Burkina Faso
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Costa Rica
Côte d´Ivoire
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Hong Kong
New Zealand
St. Christopher
St. Kitts
St. Lucia
Sri Lanka
United Kingdom

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 7:34:06 AM PDT
J. Schwarz says:
Read an article in the Israeli news where Israel invited the PA scientists to attend classes on how to improve their agriculture since Israel is one of the worlds leaders in this field. A number of PA people did attend. At the time of the formation of Israel they had offered the Palestinians access to the latest agricultural info and it was declined at that time.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 7:39:31 AM PDT
J. Schwarz says:
Soon most of the new phones we will be able to buy will contain Israeli tech inside. The tech will be in Samsung, Motorola, and HTC phones. Israeli tech is now being tried out in Japan where cancerous tumors are being removed with cryo tools. So instead of having to go into an operating room to undergo a procedure by surgery the tumor will be removed with cold. The tools have been in use for a while on benign tumors.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 8:48:15 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
Erev Tov Israel !

Monday, June 4, 2012
Khaled Abu Toameh - Where Are the Moderate Arabs and Palestinians?
Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
04 June '12..

In Israel, there are dozens of organizations and parties that openly advocate peace with the Palestinians and the Arab world. Some even go as far as calling on the Israeli government to comply with 100% of the Palestinians' demands by fully withdrawing to the pre-1967 lines.

Many of these organizations and parties have also been active in launching protests against Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories, especially the construction of the security barrier and new houses in settlements.

Israeli human rights groups and other organizations are usually the first to condemn the Israel Defense Forces or the government when something with the Palestinians goes wrong. Some Israelis have decided to expand their protest by participating in Palestinian street demonstrations against the Israeli Defense Forces in the West Bank or the Police in east Jerusalem.

The Israeli media is also full of articles -- by Jewish writers -- who are extremely critical of the Israeli establishment and who openly back Palestinian demands for statehood and independence. Hence it is no surprise that Palestinian media newspapers devote entire pages to publish translated [pro-Palestinian] articles and news stories that originally appeared in the Israeli media.

Some Israeli politicians, especially Arab Knesset members, have used the parliamentary podium to advance and defend the causes of Palestinians. Israeli policies and actions are condemned in the Knesset more than they are denounced in the Palestinian or any Arab parliament. The Palestinian parliament, incidentally, has been paralyzed since 2007 because of the dispute between Hamas and Fatah.

In most parliaments throughout the Arab world, representatives do not enjoy the same freedom of speech as their counterparts in Israel. Members of parliament in the Arab world can not stand up and openly demand peace with Israel. When was the last time an Arab parliament or prominent politician or columnist called for peace and compromise with Israel?

Can anyone in the Palestinian territories or the Arab world form a party that advocates peace, coexistence and harmony with Israel? On the contrary, the only voices that are being heard among Palestinians and other Arabs are those who seek to boycott and delegitimize Israel. Any Palestinian or Arab who dares to talk to Israelis or visit Israel is accused of being a traitor for promoting "normalization" with the "Zionist enemy."

In Israel, hundreds of thousands of people once took to the streets to protest against the Israeli war in Lebanon and the killing of innocent civilians in refugee camps. The mass protest resulted in the resignation of then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon.

During the last war in the Gaza Strip, more protests took place inside Israel than inside most Arab capitals or in the West Bank -- where the Palestinians worked hard to suppress protests.

In Israel, there is a large movement called Peace Now that effectively endorses most of the Palestinians' demands. Has anyone ever heard of a Palestinian or Arab "Peace Now" group?

Over the past two decades, Israeli Jews have been marching toward pragmatism and moderation. A majority now supports the two-state solution and, according to public opinion polls, is even willing to make compromises on settlements and Jerusalem, By contrast, the Palestinians seem to be marching backward.

The Palestinians have been radicalized to a point where it is almost impossible to talk about peace and coexistence with Israel. For Palestinians, the true heroes are suicide bombers who blew themselves up in cafes and buses, killing innocent civilians. Peace activists, human rights advocates, moderates, journalists and reformers have almost no say and are often denounced as "traitors" and a "fifth column."


Posted on Jun 4, 2012 8:49:47 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
Monday, June 4, 2012
Bedein - Blunder Down Under: Why Did Australia Up Its UNRWA Donation By 450%
David Bedein..
Israel Behind the News..
01 June '12..

On May 28th 2012, a decision was made by the Australian government to increase its allocation to the United Nations Relief and Works agency, UNRWA, the agency that serves Palestinian Refugees and their descendants - by 450% - from $19 million to $90 million. These funds are geared for the most part to the UNRWA educational system, and should warrant careful examination, given the educational approach taught by UNRWA to half a million Palestinian Arab pupils that their purpose in life is to reclaim villages from 1948 which no longer exist.

Every aspect of Palestinian Authority education in the UNRWA refugee camps (1), is oriented around the realization of the "right of return" for Palestinian Arab refugees from the 1948 war. Yet only about 1 percent of the UNRWA residents are real refugees who fit the original UNRWA definition of "people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict."

In 1950, UNRWA defined a refugee as someone who had "lost his home and his means of livelihood" during the 1948 war launched by Arab countries to destroy Israel. Fifteen years later, UNRWA decided - against objections from western nations - to include as refugees the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those who left Israel. In 1982, UNRWA extended eligibility to all subsequent generations of descendants - forever.

The UNRWA school system which stresses the right of return as its theme is hardly inculcated through peaceful means. In 2009, the European Parliament commissioned a study of the UNWRA teachers and workers union elections that were held at the time. The results of that report were that Al-Kutla al-Islamiya, ( the Islamic block) became Hamas's official arm operating in the educational institutions run by UNRWA in Gaza. (2) In each UNRWA school, Hamas appoints a student to head an al-Kutla local branch, who operates as point of contact for Hamas. This point man is responsible for recruiting students to the Kutla and organizing activities inside the UNRWA school and after-school activities.

Dr. Arnon Groiss, who sits on a US-Norwegian-Israeli-Palestinian panel whose task it is to review incitement in the middle east, has reviewed all of the 200 new school books used by UNRWA and presented the "right of return" curriculum used by UNRWA.

Most recently, Dr. Groiss provided special briefings for senior staff members and elected officials of the Canadian Parliament and the US government (3) In his presentations, Dr. Groiss noted that "Israel does not exist on any map." in any UNRWA schools

The textbook for Grade 9, Reading and Texts, asks students to "reconcile between the following poetical lines and the feelings they express": "The morning of glory and red liberty watered by the martyrs' blood... the hope for the Liberation of Palestine."

The 8th-grade version of Reading and Texts reads: "Your enemies killed your children; split open your women's bellies, took your revered elderly people by the beard, and led them to the death pits..."

The 7th-grade textbook, Our Beautiful Language, features a poem entitled "The Martyr": "Hearing weapons' clash is pleasant to my ear and the flow of blood gladdens my soul/ as we as a body thrown upon the ground skirmished over by the desert predators/...By your life! This is the death of men and whoever asks for a noble death - here it is!"

The 5th-grade version of Our Beautiful Language includes a poem entitled "We Shall Return," which inculcates the "Right of Return"- by force:

"Return, return, we shall return/ Borders shall not exist, nor citadels and fortresses/ Cry out, O those who have left:/ we shall return!/ [We] shall return to the homes, to the valleys, to the mountains/ Under the flag of glory, Jihad and struggle/ With blood, sacrifice [fida], fraternity and loyalty/ We shall return/... To jihad in the hills; [to] harvest in the land."

Other language in the texts appears to justify terrorism. A sentence from the 8th-grade reading text exhorts, "O brother, the oppressors have exceeded all bounds and Jihad [Holy War] and sacrifice [fida] are imperative..."

In all these school books used by UNRWA, all Israeli cities - Haifa, Ramle, Jerusalem, Acre - are depicted Palestinian Arab cities.

Currently, both the US Congress and the Canadian parliament are considering legislation that would condition any further aid to UNRWA education on a reform of the UNRWA curriculum. US Rep. Chris Smith, a 32 year veteran congressman, and a senior member of the US Congressional Middle East Subcommittee has declared that all future aid to UNRWA must be"based on a certification where the president would have to certify that the UNWRA textbooks are completely excised of all anti-Semitic hate," adding that "zero tolerance on hate in those textbooks" should be the benchmark.

"And so, if you teach kids to hate when they're very, very young and just keep feeding them that kind of formula for violence, why are we surprised when they strap on dynamite and other kinds of explosives to kill themselves and think they're doing a good thing?" Smith said. "They've been taught. And we have to be much more emphatic - zero tolerance on hate in those textbooks.

"Peace starts here," is the key phrase which UNRWA uses to introduce all of its videos, pamphlets, posters and other marketing and material. UNRWA video clips produced by "American Friends of UNRWA" depict smiling Palestinian children competing in sports games in UNRWA school yards, leaving the impression that UNRWA has instilled a message of peace into the young Palestinian generation that has been under UNRWA's care since the agency's inception in 1950.

The reality on the ground is far different.

However, Australia has provided a grant to UNRWA education -with no strings attached - without paying any heed to the reality on the ground of UNRWA education. The decision makers in Australian foreign policies are not aware of serious investigations of UNRWA that now ensuing in Brussels, Ottawa, and Washington?

The question remains: Who is responsible for such a "Blunder Down Under?



*David Bedein is the Director of Israel Resource News Agency and the Center for Near East Policy Research, located at the Beit Agron International Press Center in Jerusalem Israel. The writer has conducted research studies and news stories about UNRWA for the past 24 years:
and has produced three films about UNRWA,, and is the author of "Where has all the Flour Gone: The Whims and Waste of UNRWA Arab Refugee Policy."

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 9:09:00 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
Part 1

Monday, June 4, 2012
MEQ - Are the Negev Bedouin an Indigenous People?
Fabricating Palestinian History

Havatzelet Yahel, Ruth Kark, and Seth J. Frantzman..
Middle East Quarterly..
Summer 2012..

In the last two decades, there has been widespread application of the term "indigenous" in relation to various groups worldwide. However, the meaning of this term and its uses tend to be inconsistent and variable. The expression derives from the interaction of different cultures-the meeting between the original inhabitants of a specific region (known variously as "first nations," "natives," "indigenes," or "aborigines") and new, foreign "settlers" or "colonizers," who imposed their alien value systems and way of life on the indigenous populations.[1]

In Israel, the indigenousness claim has been raised over the past few years by the country's Bedouin citizens, a formerly nomadic, Arabic-speaking group centered in the southern arid part of the country, the Negev. They argue that Israel denies their basic indigenous rights such as maintaining their traditions and owning their own lands.

Does this claim hold water? What are its implications for Israel as well as for other nations?

Indigenous Rights in the International Arena

What is known today as international law developed in Europe from the seventeenth century onward, parallel to the emergence of sovereign nation states, with the objective of regulating relations between these new entities. Traditionally, international law made no mention of group rights, which were considered a domestic concern of the state.[2]

International law was reluctant to further group rights for several reasons, among them concern for the integrity of the state and fear of separatism that would undermine its stability.[3] Furthermore, group rights were considered contradictory to the concept of a modern state based on a direct social contract between the citizen and the sovereign.

Over time, however, the idea of group rights for indigenous groups began to emerge. Indigenous societies claimed that their position was unique in view of the great damage to the independent political frameworks that they had maintained from time immemorial, their subjugation to a regime and lifestyle alien to their culture, and the limitation of the physical area in which they were forced to live. Their case, therefore, centered on revoking this perceived injustice and included demands to preserve sacred sites, traditional crafts, and customs as well as to honor preexisting treaties to the extent that such had been signed. These societies also insisted on their right to self-determination whether in the choice of group members or in the wider sense of sovereignty. The rights demanded were on behalf of the indigenous group and its common and collective character.[4]

As far as the European colonizers were concerned, legal rights vis-à-vis both preexisting populations and other colonizing nations were based on the doctrine of "discovery." This maintained that sovereignty over and full ownership of a territory belonged to the nation that discovered the new land.[5] This doctrine was upheld multiple times by the United States Supreme Court in the nineteenth century, and courts of additional nations followed suit.[6] In Australia, the British Crown used the argument of terra nullius (empty land, namely an unoccupied territory with no sovereignty or recognized system of rights) to justify its classification as crown land.[7] However, beginning in the eighteenth century, it was conceded in courts of various states that the population that lived in a territory before the advent of the Europeans did possess rights. Legal arguments focused on the question of whether, prior to the arrival of the colonizers, a system of land rights already existed in a specific territory that had to be taken into account, and if so, in what manner.[8]

Early attempts by indigenous peoples to bring their case before international forums began in the 1920s.[9] Their first successes, however, came decades later when activity shifted from domestic arenas to regional, and later, international organizations. On the international level, the issue of indigenousness was advanced in three major frameworks. The first comprised two covenants adopted by the International Labor Organization, an affiliate of the United Nations: the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention of 1957 (No. 107), and later, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989 (No. 169)[10]-neither of which was successfully implemented.

The second framework consisted of the efforts of organizations such as the World Bank, which since the 1990s, began to list indigenous rights as an issue of concern in its dealing with countries, especially in the Third World.[11]

The third framework was informal action within various forums of the U.N. dealing with human rights. This included initiating conferences[12] and promoting study of the topic. Beginning in 1971, the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) conducted an extensive study of the issue of native populations.[13] Carried out over a period of about ten years, the research was published in a series of reports submitted between 1981 and 1986. In 1982, the U.N. Working Group on Indigenous Populations was established, charged with protecting native populations and the development of international standards relating to their rights.[14] A draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP)[15] was enjoined in 1985, and almost twenty years later in 2006, was finally submitted to the U.N. General Assembly and approved the next year with the support of more than 140 nations. Four nations that voted against it (the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) eventually withdrew their opposition. Israel did not participate in the voting.[16] During this time, the assembly declared 1995-2004 to be the "International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples" and established a permanent forum on this issue within the framework of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.[17] The assembly declared a second decade on December 20, 2004.[18]

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 9:10:01 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
Part 2

Much of the delay in presenting DRIP centered on differences of opinion related to the concept of sovereignty[19] as well as the definition of indigenous.[20] Since no consensus was reached on this crucial definition, the problem was circumvented by deleting it from the draft.[21] Numerous countries, mainly from Asia and Africa, made qualifying statements regarding their support for the declaration. Indonesia for example, with its hodgepodge of ethnicities and languages, argued that "the rights in the Declaration accorded exclusively to indigenous people and did not apply in the context of Indonesia."[22] A more restricted view of indigenousness had been articulated as early as 1999 by Miguel Alfonso Martinez, then special rapporteur of the U.N. Working Group on Indigenous Populations. His view is consistent with a concept that indigenousness is relevant to countries where there is a "two-stage model" of first inhabitants and colonizers and is less relevant or completely irrelevant in an environment of multistage historical development.[23]

The final version of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007, also did not include a definition of an indigenous people, mainly because the relevant U.N. bodies were unable to agree on the matter.[24] This has contributed to the low level of de facto implementation of the declaration among U.N. member states.

What Is an Indigenous People?

Despite the absence of a universally accepted definition, DRIP manages to shed some light on the question of what an indigenous people is: a separate political entity with unique characteristics within the framework of the state. According to its articles, such entity or nation has the sovereign right to determine the structure of its institutions, its identity, and its membership.[25] Moreover, the declaration differentiates between rights accruing to individuals and to the collective body; articles dealing with land rights refer only to the rights of indigenous peoples as a collective body, not as individuals.

Based on this declaration and the existing literature,[26] a list of recurring parameters of indigenousness can be established:

- Original inhabitants: Indigenes are descendants of the people who were first in a particular territory.[27]

- Time duration: Indigenous people have lived on the land "from time immemorial"-thousands, and even tens of thousands of years. The Australian aborigines, for example, have lived in their territory for anywhere between 40,000 and 60,000 years while Native Americans claim a history of thousands of years. Another related attribute is that indigenous people were on the land before newcomers arrived.[28]

- Pre-colonial sovereignty.

- Experience of oppression by a foreign culture and legal regime. While many groups may sense having being oppressed, oppression in this context refers to "colonialism or something like colonialism."[29]

- Group attachment to land: Indigenous peoples maintain a unique, common relationship of a spiritual nature with the land on which they live or have lived.[30] This is often reflected in the belief that land is a gift to that people from God.[31]

- Distinct, non-dominant (marginalized) populations.

- Separate customary, cultural, economic, social, and political institutions.

- Self-identification and recognition by others as indigenous.

An important differentiation between indigenous peoples and minorities is connected to those parameters that relate to the historical dimension such as "first nationhood" or former (i.e., pre-colonial) sovereignty on the soil.[32] While such a distinction has recently been challenged (primarily by groups in Africa for whom proving the historical connection is problematic),[33] it is important to maintain the difference. In fact, a crucial differentiation between minority rights and indigenous rights is that minority rights are formulated as individual rights whereas indigenous rights are collective.[34] This distinction, as well as the articles incorporated into DRIP, has a particular relevance to the claims of the Negev Bedouins.

The Negev's "First People"

In the past few years, the Bedouin of Israel's Negev have begun claiming the status of an indigenous people, arguing that Israel like other colonialist regimes dominated their territory, refused to admit their lengthy presence in their native land, and denied their rights.[35] This line of argument is consistent with the position of the Arab leadership, voiced as early as the early 1920s, that disparaged the Jewish national revival as an alien, colonial intrusion into the pan-Arab patrimony. These arguments are both erroneous and misleading. To begin with, the Bedouin are by no means the only people who can lay claim to the notion of being a "first people" in Palestine: Jewish attachment to the land predates Arab presence there by millennia. Indeed, of the countless groups that have lived in Palestine since antiquity, Jews are the only nation that can claim an uninterrupted presence on the land from biblical times to date-for a significant amount of the time as its rulers.

About three millennia ago, a kingdom of Israel was established in the landmass from the Negev in the south to the Golan Heights in the north. At one stage, it was split into two kingdoms: Israel and Judah. The northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria in the eighth century B.C.E., and a portion of its population was exiled. The southern kingdom of Judah, which exercised sovereignty over the Negev, continued to exist until it fell in the sixth century B.C.E. to the Babylonians, who exiled a considerable segment of the populace. The Babylonian Empire was soon, thereafter, conquered by the Persians, who allowed the exiled Jews to return to their homeland in 538 B.C.E. In addition to the returning Jews, the land was peopled at this time by Idumeans (Edomites), the remnant of the Philistines, Samaritans (a mixture of Israelites and Assyrian colonists), and some Arab groups, likely the ancestors of those who would come to be called the Nabateans.

Over the course of approximately four centuries, the country was under the control of various non-Jewish rulers, but from 141-63 B.C.E., the sovereign Jewish kingdom of the Hasmonean dynasty was established, eventually falling within the sphere of Rome, which ruled it with some minor hiatus for the next seven centuries. With the Muslim conquest of the seventh century C.E., there began an increased movement of Arab tribes into the area. Over the next nine centuries, various foreign Muslim and non-Muslim occupiers controlled the land, culminating in the Ottoman conquest in 1517.[36]

Since its advent in the seventh century, Islam constituted the organizing principle of the sociopolitical order underpinning the long string of great Muslim empires.[37] Islamic principles became the framework that brought Arab tribes together, served as a unifying force for social organization, and invested the empire with political legitimacy with the sultan-caliph recognized as the religious and temporal head of (most of) the world Muslim community.[38] Tribal lifestyle and customs also became an integral part of the systems of government and law.[39] Courts were established throughout the empire that passed judgment according to Shari'a (Islamic law), an Ottoman land law formalized in 1858, and other civil jurisprudence codified in 1876 as the Ottoman Mejelle.[40]

During World War I, Britain took control of the land and in 1922 was appointed the mandatory administrator for Palestine by the League of Nations with the specific goal of facilitating the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine as envisaged by the Balfour declaration. The British Mandate in Palestine continued utilizing most of the existing Ottoman legal system, including laws related to land.[41] With the establishment of Israel, the Provisional State Council (the temporary parliament antecedent to the Knesset) enacted the Law and Administration Ordinance of 1948 that maintained the existing legal system with its roots in Ottoman law.[42]

Thus, in contrast to colonies in which Western powers imposed a foreign legal system, in Mandate Palestine, and later Israel, the judicial system that developed over the years was grounded in the norms of tribal life and the Muslim population. More important, neither the British nor the Israelis considered the land terra nullius to which the old European doctrine of discovery applied for the simple reason that it was neither "empty" nor "discovered." As far as the Jewish people was concerned, Mandate Palestine was its ancestral homeland, and it was the general recognition of this fact that underlay the League of Nations' mandate for the establishment of a Jewish national home there.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 9:12:12 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
Part 3

The Negev Bedouin

Until the twentieth century the Bedouin of the Middle East, including those of the Negev, were livestock-raising nomads whose movements were dictated by a constant search for pasture and water.[43] It has long been noted that what characterizes the Bedouin is their relationship to the tribe, rather than to a specific place or territory.[44]

Among the Bedouin tribes living in the Negev today, most view themselves as descendants of nomadic tribes from the Arabian Peninsula.[45] In fact, most of them arrived fairly recently, during the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, from the deserts of Arabia, Transjordan, Sinai, and Egypt.[46] Part of this migration occurred in the wake of Napoleon's invasion of Egypt and Palestine in 1798-99 and subsequent Egyptian rule under Muhammad Ali and his son Ibrahim Pasha (r. 1831-41). During this period, Egyptian forces moved through Sinai and into the Negev using the coastal road that runs through Rafah, accompanied by numerous camp followers, peasants, and Bedouin. Some of the Egyptian peasants who followed in the footsteps of the army established new settlements and neighborhoods in Palestine, others joined Bedouin tribes in the Negev.[47]

Ottoman tax registers demonstrate that the tribes which lived in the Negev in 1596-97 are not those residing there today.[48] According to historians Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah, the tax registers that reflect material collected in those years show names of forty-three Bedouin tribes living in what became Mandatory Palestine, including six in the Negev. There is not much information on what became of those tribes.[49] However, the names of the tribes currently living in the Negev do not appear on the tax registers from 1596.[50] The Ottoman government did not maintain reliable records for this area after 1596, so these registers are the best indicators of which tribes existed in the early Ottoman period. Clinton Bailey, a scholar of Bedouin culture, also found no evidence in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries of the continuity or existence of Bedouin tribes, which later lived in the Negev in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.[51]

Bedouin consolidation of their Negev foothold was achieved through armed intertribal struggles as well as raids on established Arab settlements that caused the latter's demise.[52] Although the nomads depended upon sedentary populations for survival, they looked down upon them while settled Arabs viewed the Bedouin as opportunists or worse, as cruel robbers.[53] Numerous authors have documented the Bedouin role in conquering the Negev as well as the plundering and expulsion of settled Arabs from other parts of Palestine.[54] British surveyor and archeologist Claude R. Conder, writing in the 1880s, described a situation of unending war between the Bedouin tribes and the settled villagers.[55]

Nomadism continued in Palestine until the beginning of the twentieth century when a transition to semi-nomadic life and settlement took place.[56] Concurrently, there was a gradual shift in the manner in which the Bedouin related to the land, from common exploitation for grazing by all members of the tribe to private use.[57] Simultaneously, there was a gradual transition from animal husbandry to agriculture.[58] By 2000, animal husbandry was practiced by only about 10 percent of the Bedouin, and many of the younger generation have expressed reservations about maintaining their parents' lifestyle.[59]

Prior to the establishment of Israel there were about 65,000 Negev Bedouin. During the 1948 war and in its immediate aftermath, most left for neighboring states, reducing the Negev Bedouin population to about 11,000.[60] Since then, however, numbers have dramatically increased to almost 200,000 persons in 2011. There has also been significant improvement in education and in health indices among Israeli Bedouin. However, when compared with other groups in Israeli society, including urban and rural Arabs, they remain at the lowest socioeconomic level.[61]

In the 1970s, about 3,000 Bedouin filed claims demanding that Israel recognize their full private ownership of hundreds of thousands of dunams of land in the Negev (1 dunam=1000 m2), including the right to sell. Israeli courts, basing their decision on Ottoman and British law, have consistently refused to sanction the Bedouin claims. The courts have decreed that the lands claimed were never allocated for private use, and that they are of the category of mewat (defined by the Ottoman land law as the area of waste land that lies beyond the carry of the human voice when uttered from the nearest habitation). It is public land and cannot be assigned as privately owned.[62] Currently, there are no claims before Israeli courts for collective land rights, and there is no expressed interest in land for collective grazing or for the maintenance of nomadic traditions.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 9:12:58 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
Part 4

Are the Negev Bedouin Indigenous?

While there is no universally agreed-upon definition of indigenous, do the Bedouin of the Negev fit the previously outlined parameters for what constitutes an indigenous people? Using such criteria, the answer is an unequivocal No:

- Original inhabitants. Many groups preceded the Bedouin in Palestine in general and in the Negev in particular, including the Jewish people, which has maintained uninterrupted presence in the land since biblical times. Hence, the Bedouin can hardly claim to be the country's original inhabitants.

- Time dimension. This requires a lengthy presence in a territory-the so-called "time immemorial" parameter. But the Negev Bedouin have been there for only two centuries. Nor can they claim presence in the land before the arrival of the foreign power as the imperial Ottoman presence there predated that of the Bedouin by centuries. By contrast, the Jewish presence in Palestine fully corresponds to the "from time immemorial" parameter.

- Sovereignty. In the case of the Negev Bedouin, they were never sovereign in the area. When they arrived, the Negev was already under Ottoman rule, before coming under British, then Israeli sovereign authority.

- Oppression by a foreign culture and legal regime. It was, in fact, the Bedouin who imposed themselves on established settlers in the Negev, displacing them and destroying their villages. The Ottoman Muslim order, which they confronted upon arrival, was similar to what they had experienced in the other parts of the empire from which they migrated to Palestine. Britain was indeed a foreign power, but it never attempted to colonize Palestine as its presence there was transitory from the start in line with the League of Nations mandate. As for the Jews, far from being colonial intruders, they were descendants of the country's ancient inhabitants, authorized by the international community-as represented by the League of Nations-to reestablish their independence in the ancestral homeland.

- Unique spiritual relationship to the territory. While nomadic life, by definition, precludes permanent attachment to specific territory, pastoral lands do become a significant element in Bedouin life given their importance for tribal subsistence. Furthermore, even today, control of an area is a matter of honor among the Bedouin, and any challenge to this control, however legitimate or legal, is considered an insult.[63] Nonetheless, there is no evidence of long-standing Bedouin traditions relating to the Negev, a logical situation considering their fairly short presence there and nomadic lifestyle, and they look to the Arabian Peninsula as their historical homeland.

Moreover, the Bedouin are not currently asking for collective land rights, rather all their claims are formulated on an individual basis (overwhelmingly by males with almost total exclusion of women), demanding the right of individuals to sell land and transfer it to a third party.[64] These private demands are not congruent with the spiritual dimension parameter and even contradict it, which leads to the conclusion that the main Bedouin aspirations are for private gain and have no real collective element relevant to a campaign for recognition as indigenes.

- A minority with an identity different from that of the general population. The Bedouin are, without doubt, a small minority in Israel, not only of the entire population but even within the country's Arab citizens. Indeed, until the middle of the Mandate period, the Bedouin were considered by the Palestinian Arab peasants as their enemies.[65]

Recently there have been signs of an abandonment of an independent Bedouin identity and the gradual adoption of a Palestinian Arab identity accompanied by increasing involvement in Muslim fundamentalism.[66] A 2003 study concluded that the Bedouin should no longer be considered a "society unto themselves" and that their identity today is Palestinian Arab, lacking any common tribal element, and is in the process of being shaped anew. It further claimed there was an ulterior motive behind the long-standing categorization of a separate Bedouin identity: to negate the national Palestinian Arab identity.[67] The last conclusion, however, flies in the face of historical evidence, ignoring the unambiguous Ottoman view of the Bedouin as a separate group, long before the advent of confrontation between the Arab and Jewish populations of Palestine.

- A group with separate economic, social, cultural, and political institutions. In the past, Bedouin tribes behaved as separate units with an accepted leadership in the person of tribal sheiks. Tribes had a system of customs that governed all aspects of life, and each of them was an independent economic and social group; occasionally several tribes would join together politically to form a confederation. Today, the situation has changed dramatically. Studies attest to a significant weakening of the framework that handled tribal affairs and of tribes' ability to come to decisions acceptable to all individuals. Institutions that formerly made decisions within the tribe or in intertribal relations no longer exist today.[68]

Customary law and values necessary when the Bedouin were nomads, such as mutual responsibility, are no longer relevant.[69] It would seem that today one cannot speak of Bedouin tribes in the Negev, alone or in confederation, as an operational administrative framework. The end of nomadism and the transition to permanent settlements during the past century have done away with identification of the tribe as a separate economic entity. Today, every household has its own occupation as part of the general economy, and there is no universally acceptable authoritative leadership. Nor are there consequential political frameworks whose decisions are accepted by all even in areas that are of primary importance to indigenous peoples, such as lands. Decisions relating to land are taken only by individuals; any declaration in the name of the tribe or in the name of the Bedouin is, therefore, not legitimate. There have been no demands by individual Bedouins to subordinate themselves once again to an internal, independent tribal framework. The opposite is the case: The tendency today is to increase individual rights. Authority that formerly rested with the sheik vis-à-vis his tribe, including matters relating to land usage, was abrogated after members of the tribe claimed that such authority was superfluous and that the sheiks exploited it to further their own interests at the expense of ordinary tribesmen. Despite the disappearance of an authority to manage and operate tribal matters, and the absence of tribal political frameworks, specific customs and traditions continue to exist as part of Bedouin customary law, but mainly in certain spheres of personal and family life such as marriage and inheritance rights.[70]

- The group identifies itself, and is viewed by others, as an indigenous people in the territory. As has been demonstrated, the Bedouin claim to indigenousness is very new, having been raised for the first time only a few years ago.[71] Earlier studies did not report that the Negev Bedouin consider themselves as such, nor did the researchers make the claim that they were an indigenous people. Since Bedouin tribes in other Middle Eastern countries have never claimed indigenousness, the validity of this claim by the Negev Bedouin is doubtful. Are the Bedouin somehow indigenous only in relation to the Negev but not in their homeland-Arabia-or in other Middle Eastern countries in which they abound?[72] Even parts of the same tribes as those in the Negev that live elsewhere, for example, in the Sinai, do not claim indigenousness in their countries of residence.


Although there is no official definition of indigeneity in international law, Negev Bedouin cannot be regarded as an indigenous people in the commonly accepted sense. If anything, the Bedouin have more in common with the European settlers who migrated to other lands, coming into contact with existing populations with often unfortunate results for the latter.

Moreover, rather than suffering an alien imposition on their indigenous way of life, the Bedouin migrated mainly from one part of the Ottoman Empire to another, governed by the same system of administration and legislation with which they were familiar and which the British and the Israelis have subsequently largely maintained.

As clearly demonstrated, the Negev Bedouin do not presently prefer to be a separate and independent entity in various spheres of public life such as economic and political activities. Their aspirations are of an individual nature. They are not interested in maintaining nomadic traditions of collective ownership of lands for the maintenance of a collective community but rather in an exclusively male proprietorship that would enable Bedouin men to sell the land to others at their own discretion. No studies have shown the existence today of functioning, independent institutions in various spheres of daily life that could point to the Bedouin being an indigenous people.

That no other Bedouin tribe in the entire Middle East has raised a claim to indigenousness raises questions regarding the motivations and authenticity of such an argument. Since the Bedouin in the Negev in some cases are from the same tribe as those found in neighboring countries, it is not logical that they can only be indigenous when they are on the Israeli side of the border.

The entire question of indigenousness is particularly problematic with regard to Israel. The fear is that instead of providing remedies and established order, it will create new disputes. The Land of Israel has a dual history, marked both by constant waves of immigration and invasion by various peoples and uninterrupted Jewish presence in the land from time immemorial. The Jews have always considered the Land of Israel their national homeland, have lived in it as a sovereign nation in historical times, maintained at least a toehold there despite persecution, and returned to it time and again after being exiled. This spiritual relationship is also expressed in both Jewish daily prayers and Israel's Declaration of Independence. If the parameters and preconditions for indigenousness are made more flexible to include arrivistes like the Bedouin, surely Jews can also raise a claim to be the indigenous people in Israel, a land which they called home thousands of years before the Negev Bedouin.[73] In such a case, it may also be expected that other ethnic groups, such as Druze, Christian Arabs, and Samaritans, would claim indigenous status. No doubt, this would add to confrontations already existing over control of land and the holy places.

The concept of indigenousness was intended to help remedy past injustices by giving native peoples the means to preserve their separate identity, common lifestyle, and the customs of their past. The Negev Bedouin may be a poor and marginal sector of Israeli society, yet this does not transform them into an indigenous people.


Posted on Jun 4, 2012 9:14:29 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:
Monday, June 4, 2012
(Video) Did CNN Give a Free Pass to Propaganda?
04 June '12..

CNN doesn't challenge Saeb Erekat about terrorists. Instead, he is allowed to tell viewers how mothers will be able to bury their children "with honor." He doesn't mention (and CNN doesn't tell viewers) that those being buried have committed atrocities.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 9:56:21 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:

Op-Ed: Why Land Matters, Part II

Published: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:32 AM

A three part series that explains cogently what the issue of land means to Israel's survival.

Yedidya Atlas
Yedidya Atlas is a veteran journalist specializing in geo-political and geo-strategic affairs in the Middle East.who was a writer for Arutz Sheva. His articles have also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Insight Magazine, Nativ, The Jerusalem Post and Makor Rishon, reprinted by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the US Congressional Record.
► More from this writer

(For Part I, click here).

Conceding Israeli control of the 34-mile-wide area known as Judea and Samaria to any of Israel's actual or even potential enemies means a return to the pre-1967 nine-mile waistline across Israel's coastal strip and a security border of 223 miles to patrol and defend.

Retention of said territories means a mere 62 miles of security border to patrol and defend. It also means Israeli control of vital mountain passes, the 4,200-foot high ground overlooking the Jordan Rift Valley, and the minimal strategic depth between the Jordan River and Israel's highly populated and industrialized coastal plain.

To comprehend why this is so important to Israel's security, it is necessary to understand the difference between Israel before mass mobilization and afterwards.

When Israel fights a war, it must take into account many factors: weapons technologies, tactical knowledge, motivation and education of the soldiers, etc. However, the prime factor is still numbers. The best equipped and most superiorly trained army cannot win if it is hopelessly outnumbered. This has always been an issue for Israel.

The IDF, as every responsible army, must be prepared for every eventuality. Israel cannot afford to lose a war. According to reports, the latest annual IDF General Staff exercises dealt with various combinations of possible attacks from different fronts including south (Gaza and Egypt), north (Lebanon and Syria) and east (Iran). Other possibilities were also taken into account, but those were the major ones.

In each of these possibilities, strategic depth is a critical factor. In the south, Israel has already given up its strategic buffer areas, and if the IDF were to fail to take the battle into enemy territory (basic IDF doctrine), the fighting would be within easy range of major Israeli population centers.

In the north, the Golan Heights are, as always, critical, and in the northeast and east, Judea and Samaria are not only vital for defense, but would also serve as passage ways for mobilization and logistics. (The Cross-Samarian Highway, for example, was originally planned by the IDF General Staff following the 1967 Six Day War as the major connecting artery to the Jordan Valley from the coastal plain.)

Despite the immense security risks Israel faces, the Jewish State's small population means it doesn't have the security of a large standing army. For that reason, soldiers who have completed their mandatory service, continue in the reserves - especially in combat units - well into their forties, contributing up to over a month or more of service each year for both training and active-duty assignments.

In short: the army reserves constitute the backbone of the IDF's manpower needs.

IDF doctrine encompasses a number of basic security truths. Among them are that Israel cannot afford to lose a single war, we must have a credible deterrent posture including territorially, and that the outcome of war must be determined quickly and decisively.

Israel cannot afford to lose a single war.
Proper preparation means Israel's small standing army must be equipped with an early-warning capability, coupled with an efficient reserve mobilization and deployment system.

Israel, prior to mobilization, is basically a relatively weak country militarily in terms of all out war with more than one front involved - which is a distinct possibility that the IDF planners seriously take into account. Post-mobilization Israel, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.

Israel has the potential to mobilize hundreds of thousands of reserves which more than triples the manpower of the Israeli army. This considerably alters the ratio against the enemy. While exact figures are classified, suffice to say the combined Arab armies outnumber Israel's standing army by a ratio of approximately 15 to 1. Whereas after a full scale call-up of Israel's reserves, the ratio is reduced to less than 4 to 1.

While these are still great odds against the Jewish State, it is necessary to add into the mix the Israeli army's strength: superior weapons systems, intelligence and logistics, better training, higher education and motivation (being in a "no alternative" situation where losing means national annihilation is a major factor in superior motivation). The result is an army with a better than even chance of winning a war.

As noted, current Israeli defense doctrine must take into account the vulnerability of its national infrastructure to enemy missile attack. This means reserves deployment locations must be sufficiently dispersed and distant from one another and from the border itself, to increase the chances of completing the mobilization and deploying the reserve forces to the war zone, even in the event of a missile attack. If the reserve mobilization were delayed by a barrage of ballistic missiles, then initial terrain conditions for Israel's small, numerically inferior, standing army units would become all the more critical.

Judea and Samaria's mountain ridge is also crucial to Israel's air defenses. Israel deploys its air defense facilities along the mountain ridge to enable the interception of enemy aircraft from forward positions instead of from the heavily populated coastal plain. Short-range radar and early-warning systems situated in the coastal plain would have their line-of-sight blocked by the Judea and Samaria mountain ridge.

Without control of this high ground, Israel would have no warning time to intercept attacking aircraft. It takes only three minutes for an enemy fighter bomber to cross the Jordan River and fly the 42 miles to Tel Aviv. If Israel's strategic depth were 34 miles less (i.e.: without Judea and Samaria), enemy planes could leave Arab air space and reach Tel Aviv in under one minute or less than minimum Israeli "scramble time," not to mention ground defenses' reaction time.

But to win the war with the aforementioned better than even chance, another agonizing problem must be solved. As noted, Israel requires 48 hours to fully mobilize. It is economically unfeasible for the IDF to be in a state of constant mobilization. The productivity of the country would grind to a standstill. No nation could survive such conditions indefinitely. In fact, it was due to this factor that the Soviet Union was able to orchestrate the 1967 Six Day War.

The Soviets informed the Egyptians that Israel was mobilizing on its northern borders opposite Syria. Although untrue, it caused the Egyptians to pull their troops out of Yemen and mass them on the Israeli lines. This in turn forced Israel to truly mobilize - this time opposite Egypt.

Realizing the consequences of long-term mobilization, Israel sent word to Egypt proposing a mutual de-escalation of troops. Nasser's response was to close the Straits of Tiran, which was an act of war. Israel, faced with the task of waiting for Egypt to attack, while forced to maintain an unending full-scale mobilization with the consequences of impending national economic disaster, had no choice but to act. Hence, Israel's preemptive attack on the morning of June 5, 1967.

While conventional warfare, Israel's main threat up until the late 1980s, subsequently became less probable, the threat of terrorist attacks together with missiles, from short-range rockets to large ballistic missiles, appear to have become the primary threats Israel faces.

However, the political upheaval in the Arab world in the last few years cannot rule out - especially with the rise in prominence of radical Islamic elements in Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, among others - the potential return of regular Arab armies facing Israel in the near future.

Even in the missile age, wars are still ultimately decided by the movement of armies and not just by air strikes. As long as conventional ground forces remain the decisive element in determining the outcome of wars, then such issues as territory and strategic depth are crucial.

Despite the proliferation of missiles and the use of terrorism as a strategic weapon, most of Israel's Arab neighbors still stress the role of heavy armor in their order of battle, thus conventional warfare remains a significant potential threat

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 11:09:05 AM PDT
Sixties Fan says:

Op-Ed: Expose: Amnesty's Humanitarian Pogrom

Published: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:43 AM

In Amnesty's diabolic doublespeak, protecting Israelis from suicide attacks and slaughter has become "apartheid".

Giulio Meotti

Amnesty International published its report for 2012, providing a survey of the global human rights situation.

About Judea and Samaria, Amnesty charges Israel of "torture", "siege" and "war crimes".

Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (1977) for shining a spotlight on political prisoners, Amnesty claims to be the "conscience of the world". But as the latest report shows, Amnesty is now the symbol of an ideology estranged from the glorious tradition of Western human rights and constitutes one of the most frightening faces of the new anti-Semitism, in the form of an assault on the Jewish people's right to live as an equal member of the family of nations.

During the first Intifada, members of the PLO and the PFLP were defined by Amnesty as "prisoners of conscience", including those convicted of terrorist actions in a court of law.

Amnesty supported the Intifada, a terrorist uprising by a hostile population aligned with organizations and countries at war with Israel.

The group had a long record of condemning torture and executions, yet it always ignored PLO-instigated killings of its opponents and so-called "collaborators" (with Israel).

The Amnesty reports discussed the IDF's "deliberate" killings of Arab rioters. When Amnesty was questioned about sources of information, it offered the PLO as one. In 1990,

Amnesty's secretary-general, Ian Martin, appeared on a vitriolic anti-Israel show on Jordan television, puportedly to praise "improvements" in Amman's stance on human rights. Martin made no mention of the 81 shootings, 5 grenade attacks, 651 Molotov cocktail attacks, 94 bombings, 173 assaults with knives, clubs, axes and swords, and 299 cases of arson against Israeli civilians and soldiers during the first two years of the Intifada.

Last year, Amnesty hosted in London an event titled: "Complicity in Oppression: Do the Media Aid Israel?". Organized by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the anti-Israel conference featured Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper. In 2007, Atwan declared that he would dance "in Trafalgar Square if Iran attacked Israel" and he said that the attack on the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva in Jerusalem, where eight young Israeli students were slaughtered while studying in the library by a Palestinian terrorist, "was justified".

Even an anti-Zionist writer like Salman Rushdie has accused Amnesty of "moral bankruptcy", because the organization is serving as an effective weapon in the hands of human rights' most dedicated enemies.

Amnesty today plays a very important role in the portrayal of Israel as the epitome of the human rights violator.

In 2002, the humanitarian group falsely accused Israel of committing "war crimes" in Jenin: it was a myth and a mockery of international law - in fact, 13 IDF soldiers died there, many from sniper fire, because Israel decided not to carry out an airstrike in order to avoid injuring Arab civilians, even though residents had been warned to leave the terrorist-ridden area - but the legend of the rubble and corpses buried with it is still used to assail Israel and the Jews around the world.

Amnesty's reports form the political and legal infrastructure for producing the blood libel of Israel as an "illegal", "settler", "entity".

Among other things, Amnesty asks the Obama Administration to "immediately suspend military aid to Israel".

Amnesty's lies about Israel's "apartheid wall" and "apartheid roads" has been one of the most repugnant propagandistic manipulations ever suffered by the Jewish State. In Amnesty's diabolic doublespeak, protecting Israelis from suicide attacks and slaughter has become "apartheid".

While foreign fences keep out livestock and refugees from neighboring countries, only Israel's fences and checkpoints have a truly humanitarian reason: to secure the civilian population's right to life. In Israel, barbed wire, patrol roads, sand tracking paths, video cameras and electronic sensors are used to prevent a restaurant, a shopping mall or a hotel from being turned into carpets of human bodies.

Amnesty has also been generous in promoting the books of anti-Israeli firebrands such as Ben White's "Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide".

Amnesty's "soft war" against the Israelis was crucial in the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, where 3,000 NGOs convinced the United Nations to condemn Israeli "racism". Well-known NGOs such as Amnesty and Save the Children attached their names to the diabolical conference.

A few weeks later, the Second Intifada (Or Oslo War, as it is cynically called in memory of the "Peace" Agreement signed with Arafat) broke out and 2.000 Jews lost their lives.

Amnesty plays a prominent role at the UN Human Rights Council, where Israel has become a pariah state, while major human rights violators, such as Syria, Lybia, Iran and North Korea, enjoy a holy immunity, and at the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, where Israel became the first ever state to face a country-specific indictment.

The head of Finland's branch of Amnesty International, Frank Johansson, called Israel "a scum state".
The head of Finland's branch of Amnesty International, Frank Johansson, called Israel "a scum state".

In 2006, the year of the Second Lebanon War, when Haifa and Nahariya sustained daily attacks from the sky, Amnesty produced more documents against Israel than on the genocide in Darfur.

Amnesty is crucial in biased reports against Israel submitted at the UN, like the discredited Goldstone Report, and in the campaigns for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against the Jewish State in European courts.

Amnesty plays a role in the ongoing legal indictments against Israeli politicians and the country's military.

Amnesty is no longer a human rights organization, but a political body with a political agenda.

Like B'tselem, its discredited Israeli imitation, Amnesty fails to distinguish between totalitarian organizations bent on destruction and true liberation movements.

It believes Israel should relinquish its backbone (Judea and Samaria), and it will do anything, including becoming the PLO propaganda instrument, to achieve this.

In the Middle Ages, the "mystery plays" [sometimes called miracle plays, ed.] portrayed the Jews as the killers of Jesus and helped fuel the tragic pogroms in which so many Jews perished.

Today, with its verdicts portraying Israelis as "war criminals", Amnesty is staging a new mystery play: the Israeli Jew, legally and humanitarianly, sentenced to death.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 2:18:59 PM PDT
Sixties Fan says:

African Infiltration Planned by Left?

Mounting evidence that influx of Africans is part of a leftist plan to flood Israel with Muslims.

AAFont Size
By Gil Ronen
First Publish: 6/4/2012, 9:59 AM
Israel feeds illegal African infiltrators
Flash 90

Are the Africans flooding into Israel doing so just because of economic hardship at home, or has the flood of infiltrators been planned, aided and abetted by the New Israel Fund and other leftist groups?

There is mounting evidence in favor of the latter possibility.

Middle East expert Dr. Guy Bechor writes in a recent article published on his website and elsewhere that leftist "human rights" NGOs seek to change Israel's demographic balance.

"After they failed to let in hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into this country, these people now expect a migration of hundreds of thousands of Muslims from Africa to Israel. It's not a war on immigration that lies ahead of us, but a war over the continuation of the Jewish majority in Israel," he states bluntly. "And what is the plan hatched in secret by those organizations of 'human rights?' When the numbers reach a quarter of a million or half a million, and we're getting there fast, the organizations will turn to the High Court of Justice and to the United Nations, demanding that Israel grant residency to these 'immigrants' and even citizenship, as is customary in the West."

"With that, the percentage of Muslims in Israel will jump immediately to between 30% and 35%, with all the demographic implications that you can imagine. Being residents, then citizens, the Africans will naturally be able to bring their family members, and the numbers will double."

The Elder of Zion blog cites a monograph written by a man named Yonathan Paz that was recently published by UNHCR. In it, Paz quotes an unnamed NGO worker who "argued that civil society organizations [the name by which ultraleftist NGOs call themselves -- ed.] advocate a perception of 'universalistic citizenship`, where everyone should have rights. 'They do not see the nationality issue as relevant, but publicly, it is not stated. In today`s public atmosphere, we will not say it out loud because it does not serve the struggle and the strategy.' As the same NGO worker argued: 'The central issue here is [one that addresses] the nature of Israeli civil society, the struggle is about the character of Israel as a state, and the refugees are not really sharing this struggle, they are rather disempowered by it.'"

In addition, a participant at nationalist website has translated an interview with a Sudanese man who crossed into Israel, which appeared two years ago in a Sudanese news publication. While the man's testimony regarding his entry into Israel and his stay seems to mix some fantasy in with facts, he does name two leftists that he says worked with him. One is Anat Ben Dor, who is a member of the Legal Clinic for Refugees in Tel Aviv University, which has been fighting to allow the African infiltrators into Israel and to prevent their arrest and deportation.

The legal clinics at TAU are run by Neta Ziv, who was a longstanding official in the New Israel Fund.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 2:28:10 PM PDT
Sixties Fan says:

June 4, 2012

Jewish group provides Israeli technology to East Africa

by Adam Soclof, JTA


Jewish Heart for Africa is now serving 250,000 people in East Africa with Israeli technologies.

The New York-based organization announced the milestone in conjunction with the expected completion of its 57th project later this month. Founded in 2008 by Sivan Borowich Ya'ari, Jewish Heart for Africa has used Israeli solar and agricultural technologies to assist rural villages in Ethiopia, Tanzania, Malawi and Uganda.

"In these villages, solar technology isn't an alternative energy source, it's the only energy source,"Ya'ari said in a statement. "Powering a refrigerator, or even a light bulb, can save lives."

Israel began offering solar technology know-how to Africa as early as 1960, when a team of African scientists visited the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot.

Jewish Heart for Africa announced its goal of doubling the number of people it serves within the next two years.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 2:38:31 PM PDT
Sixties Fan says:

'Jew,' the New Taunt of the Euro 2012 Championships

Fans are being warned against traveling to the Ukraine for the Euro 2012 Championship for fears that they risk being attacked by Nazi mobs.

By Rachel Hirshfeld
First Publish: 6/5/2012, 12:14 AM

Supporters of England's Metalist Kharkiv team are being warned against traveling to the Ukraine for the European Soccer Championship, set to kick off June 8, for fears that they risk being attacked by Nazi mobs.

Britain's Foreign Office's Euro 2012 travel advice warns: "Those of Asian or Afro-Caribbean descent and individuals from religious minorities should take extra care" this year as they consider whether to attend the highly anticipated championship.

Both England and France have a following of hardcore, dedicated fans known as `Ultras' - a name given to football fans who put on displays of support using homemade banners, flares and chanting. Most notable, however, is their perpetual violence against foreigners.

"This is a country where football fans use the word Jew as an insult. In a match at Krakow, both sets of Ultras are caged like animals in their terraces behind metal fencing," wrote Chris Rodgers in an article published in The Daily Mail. "The Ultras supporting the team of Wisla are taunting their local rivals calling them Jewish `******' Many wear T-shirts with anti-Semitic slogans."

Fans can also be seen wearing custom-made T-shirts with the slogans such as `National Army Against The Jews'.

In the supporter's bar, the bartender greets fans with a Nazi salute and customers can see a huge mural of the Celtic cross, often adopted as a symbol of white supremacy, on the wall, the newspaper reported.

Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych has downplayed the security concerns of many Europeans planning to travel to the country for the championship, including a warning by former English soccer captain Sol Campbell who warned fans to "stay at home, watch it on TV. Don't even risk it... because you could end up coming back in a coffin."

"We have a list of people who behaved aggressively at football matches. Their numbers are tiny, they are known to us and preventive measures will be taken," Yanukovych said.

When the Metalist team scores, hundreds of Ultras punch their chests, salute and shout `Sieg Heil!' Of their Nazi `Hail Victory' gesture. Fans, however, insist that `It's just a bit of fun.'

"The police are not helpful at all," explained a student with a bloodied nose. "They won't protect us. We have been here for years and we are always attacked but the police do nothing."

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 3:59:43 PM PDT
William B says:
CNN hits 20-year monthly ratings low
Comments (6) By DYLAN BYERS | 5/31/12 6:00 AM EDT The bad news just keeps coming for CNN, and it couldn't be happening at a worse time.

Just one day after Donald Trump criticized the network's low ratings during a highly contentious interview with host Wolf Blitzer, CNN has registered its worst monthly primetime ratings in over 20 years.

An average of 389,000 viewers watched CNN primetime between April 30 and May 27, a 51 percent drop from May 2011. By comparison, Fox News averaged 1,692,000 total viewers (a 9 percent drop), while MSNBC averaged 674,000 total viewers (a 19 percent drop).

Piers Morgan also delivered the worst ratings for his time slot in two decades (in both total and 25-54), while Erin Burnett delivered the worst ratings for the 25-54 demo in two decades.

The network has made to high-profile hires in recent days, snatching John Berman from ABC News and signing food writer and chef Anthony Bourdain for a new weekend program, but it has yet to show any signs of course correction in its primetime lineup.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 4:02:07 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
I remember CNN. Are they still on?

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 4:10:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 4, 2012 4:11:09 PM PDT
William B says:
Yes, but they've learned nothing. This is a snippet of an interview of Ted Turner by O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: "That changes it, that changes it, and now he's a very liberal guy." So I asked Ms. Fonda, "Didn't it ever bother you that after all of your activism and getting America out of Vietnam which it subsequently did in the mid-70s, that three million human beings were slaughtered by the people that you were lionizing, the North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge communists, who wouldn't have been slaughtered if we'd stayed, and their skulls were stacked up on top of one another, and I never heard a word from you, Jane Fonda, and I never heard a word from Ted Turner about that," and that, to me, is a good question.

TURNER: You got me. I didn't really think about it. You know, it didn't make the news very much at the time.

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 4:14:44 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
I recall Jane Fonda speaking at a big campust protest in the late 1960s, or early 70s, just after her infamous propaganda trip to Communist North Vietnam. Somebody asked her about Communist atrocities and she refused to answer explaining only that "I don't criticize socialist countries."

You could sure tell which side she was on.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the History forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  49
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Apr 30, 2012
Latest post:  Mar 31, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions