Israellycool

After previously claiming that the Mumbai Chabad House massacre was “a theatrical statement of hate” whose intended audience was India, with the attackers “cynically exploiting anti-Semitism in order to further inflame world opinion and curry favor with the Muslim jihadi set,” clueless blogger Richard Silverstein admits he may have been wrong.

Well, kind of:

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/12/01/did-mumbai-terrorists-torture-jews/

Thanks to reader Alex Stein for forcing me to write a post I hate to write with every fiber of my being. An Indian news report claims that many of the Mumbai hostages were tortured before being killed and that the Chabad hostages were tortured most brutally of all. IF (and I stress “if” because stories like this must be confirmed and reconfirmed before they are accepted as truth) this story is true, it could set back Jewish-Muslim relations years if not decades. Not to mention, that it will further alienate Israeli Jews from believing it is possible to live in peace with the region’s Muslims.

Ya think?

Interestingly enough, Silverstein has a hard time understanding how the constant terrorist attacks on Israeli soil led many of us to this conclusion a long time ago. In fact, according to his worldview, anyone who has formed this conclusion is a bigot.

Further, if it is true, then I will have to withdraw my earlier claims that anti-Semitism was an ancillary part of the strategy involved in this attack. If the Jewish victims were tortured savagely, then it will lead me to believe that there are much stronger links to Al Qaeda than I previously believed. Until now, I’d never thought that Pakistani militants hated the west and Jews specifically as Al Qaeda does. I’d thought their cause was more locally-determined. If the news is correct, then I think Pakistan, India and the entire region have a much bigger problem on their hands then previously thought.

Notice how it is the possibility of torture that has led Silverstein to rethink things. Had the terrorists merely murdered the Jews without torturing them, he would not have revised his conclusion.

Finally, I would urge that when and if they find the mastermind of this attack that he should be tried before an international tribunal. The horror of these acts needs to be addressed not by the justice system of a single country, but by international justice. The world needs to universally condemn such brutalism.

Curiously, Silverstein has never shown such indignation towards the palestinian masterminds of terrorist attacks against Israelis.

I don’t wish to offer unsolicited advice to my Muslim readers, friends and others, but the Mumbai attack appears to have been done in the name of Kashmir, Palestine and Muslim suffering in general.

Now, much like after 9/11, it is critical that the world hear from sane Muslims that this is a way they reject utterly and absolutely. To do so does not mean that Muslims must renounce their criticism of, or grievances against conditions they face.  It means they must ostracize those who kill in the name of Islam or Muslim suffering.

Like Hamas for example?

I have been dedicated to Muslim-Jewish dialogue for many, many years.  This horrific story will not deter me from my commitment.  But it will set back all of our good work by so very much.  I simply cannot understand the bestial savagery that lurks in the human mind (and note I said “human” mind and not “Muslim” mind–since the beast lurks in all of us).

Finally, I want to again emphasize that Alex provided only a single Indian source to confirm the torture claim.  The Times of India, one of the nation’s most respected papers doesn’t mention this story [see UPDATE below].  Further, that news source does not name any of the doctors it quotes.  Unnamed sources in this situation should not be considered reliable.  Other previous elements of the Mumbai terror story were shown to be false on further investigation. It’s entirely possible that this claim too will prove false, though I fear it may not.  If anyone can confirm that this report is false, please let me know ASAP.

UPDATE: Thanks again to Alex for pointing me to this Times of India story that acknowledges the possibility of torture, but in a very preliminary and tentative way, unlike the Rediff story.

Notice how Silverstein is exacting such high standards of proof before he will accept as fact the torture story. Yet bring him the most flimsy hint of IDF or Jewish misdeed, and he’s all over it like a rash.

Trust it to Richard Silverstein to get everything wrong about the Mumbai Chabad House massacre (note: I am providing the link to his post because it is blog etiquette. But I discourage you from clicking on it since the extra traffic will only embolden him).

It is without question deeply disturbing that terrorists based in the Indian Muslim community (given the uncertainty regarding the origin of the terrorists - different reports suggest they were Pakistani or British Muslims - how Silverstein can confidently reach this conclusion is beyond me - ed.) would adopt a new strategy of targeting Jews and Israelis for attack (what is ‘new’ about this strategy? - ed.) whereas before their targets were purely Indian.  It is surely a ratcheting up of the conflict between India and Pakistan, since it appears that all or some of the militants were motivated by the Kashmir conflict between those two countries.

The militants clearly wanted to make a theatrical statement of hate and succeeded “admirably” in just the way that the PLO did when they first began hijacking and blowing up airliners in the 1970s.

Who was the intended audience?  Of course, India. The terrorists were reminding the Indians of the continued cost of stalemate in Kashmir.  The message too was to Pakistan saying that the group behind the attack was not willing to give up on the Kashmir struggle. That it wouldn’t give up on the “brothers” living under Indian occupation there.  Of course, there was a message to the U.S. which, as the Times pointed out in a story yesterday, has been cajoling the Pakistani military to “pivot” away from India as its major foe and turn instead to the Taliban in the NW Provinces.  If Pakistani elements were involved in the Mumbai attack, as India’s prime minister has alluded, then this would be a message from either the Pakistani ISI or the Pakistani Taliban that they refuse to allow such a change in Pakistani interests.

The Times quotes Tzipi Livni saying:

“We know that the targets there that were sought out by the terrorists were Jewish and Israeli targets as well as targets that are perceived as Western targets — American and British.”

She added: “We need to understand that there’s a world here, our world, that has been attacked. And it doesn’t matter if it’s happened in India or somewhere else. We have here radical Islamic elements who do not accept either our existence or the values of the Western world. And only when incidents of this sort occur is it suddenly understood from conversations with leaders from around the entire world that we are actually party to the same battle.”

Actually, this is completely the WRONG lesson to learn.  Despite the fact that Jews were attacked, the fundamental conflict appears to involve Kashmir, and by extension Indian and Pakistan.  In other words, this is a regional conflict.  Not an Armageddon conflict between the forces of evil and good represented by the “western world” and “radical Islam.” This is precisely how the extremists on both sides, both Jewish and Muslim, would like the world to see the conflict since it confirms their apocalyptic, blood-soaked world-view.  But if we are to maintain any semblance of balance and reason in viewing incidents like this one, we must understand where the real cause of conflict lies.

At worst, the attackers are cynically exploiting anti-Semitism in order to further inflame world opinion and curry favor with the Muslim jihadi set.

As for Livini’s bogus rhetoric in which she insinuates the Israeli-Arab conflict into a world death struggle between Islam and the west, it’s cheap and misleading.  Israel’s ultimate conflict has nothing to do with radical Islam and everything to do with its Occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.  The solution to this conflict has nothing to do with eliminating radical Islam, jihad or Muslim terror.  It has everything to do with resolving a political and national conflict.

Livni, just like Sharon after 9/11, falsely wishes to hitch Israel’s wagon to a cause everyone in the west understands.

My reference to the Occupation above started me thinking about Pakistani Muslims’ resentment against India regarding the Kashmir conflict.  Here too, Muslims believe that India is occupying land that should be Pakistani.  In effect, the Kashmir conflict may be the last vestige of the 1948 events leading to the independence of India and Pakistan.  Kashmir festers like a 60 year old wound untended and unhealed.

In just the same way that Palestinian terrorists, when they mount their deadly attacks against Israelis, warn Israel that there can never be peace until their greivances are addressed and resolved, so the Indian or Kashmiri terrorists were broadcasting a message that Indian must address this issue or forever face the menace of domestic terror.

I want to make clear that I am not making any judgments about which side in the conflict over this territory is in the right and which in the wrong.  I’m not well-versed enough to do that (it hasn’t stopped him from making judgments about the Middle East conflict, despite his manifest ignorance on this topic - ed.)

Yes, that’s right. The terrorists went out of their way to locate the rather nondescript Jewish Chabad house, which was located on a narrow street in a mixed residential/commercial area, just to send a message to India, Pakistan and the US.

How can one person be so wrong all of the time?

Perhaps Silverstein believes that should things progress to the point where he has Islamic overlords, they will look favorably on him for his previous support.

However, I assume even they don’t have much use for Jewish sycophants.

We already knew that the Free Gaza tools have a soft spot for fellow Israel-hater Richard Silverstein.

The question is was that him on their last voyage?

Gabbyspoppy at Pro-Semite Undercover has seemingly set off anti-Israel blogger Richard Silverstein with some comments that include this:

He [Silverstein] also has for sale his photography (which mostly consists of pictures of his kids) cornering the pedophile market. But what the heck, a dollar is a dollar.

Silverstein’s response to this is predictable. He tries to turn it around, suggesting that the pedophilia reference would seem to suggest Gabbyspoppy’s predilection for it.

I am not stupid enough to suggest Richard Silverstein - as loathsome as his views and his treatment of people with whom he disagrees are - is a pedophile. But I do find it offputting that he would be offering for sale personal pictures - including those of his children - given the very real risk that pedophiles could purchase them.

[click on picture for large version]

I think Gabbyspoppy has a point. Silverstein does seem to be putting his pursuit of money ahead of the welfare of his family.

Look who the terror-supporting Free Gaza tools are publishing on their site.

This points to an article by the bearded sham, which includes gems such as this:

The original mission was motivated by the sheer economic misery caused by Israel’s siege, instituted after Hamas won legislative elections in 2006.

Leaving aside the fact it is not a siege, Israel’s actions were clearly the result of continued Qassam rocket attacks and other terror attacks from Gaza, and not the mere election of the terrorist organization Hamas. But Silverstein never let’s facts get in the way of a poorly written article.

Meanwhile, I thought I hit the comedy gold jackpot when I stumbled on this yearbook photo of a Richard Lee “Moby” Silverstein. After all, there is somewhat of a resemblance to the old version.

But given that young Richard L Silverstein’s yearbook picture is from 1978, that would make him approximately 60 years younger than the old, unhinged version. In any event, young Richard seems way too sporty to be mistaken for old Richard.

Blogger Joe Settler posts on how the Jerusalem Post seemingly caved in to pressure from an anti-Israel blogger called Seth Freedman, and My Right Word neatly summarizes the chain of events.

Let’s make it simple:

1. Seth Freedman publishes a takedown of Israel.

2. Edwin Bennatan published a takedown of Seth.

3. David Horowitz, JP editor, takes down Bennatan’s piece - literally - he censors it out completely.

4. David Horowitz then publishes this apology:

Thursday Sep 11, 2008
Point / Counterpoint: Apology to Seth FreedmanPosted by JPost.com staff

The Jerusalem Post would like to apologize to Seth Freedman for certain comments that appeared on our site following a September 1 blog entry written by Edwin Bennatan that were defamatory, threatening, and inappropriate.

The Jerusalem Post apologizes for any distress caused to Mr. Freedman, expresses its sincere regret that such a situation was allowed to occur, and will endeavour to prevent any recurrence.

A donation will be made by the Jerusalem Post to a charity of Mr Freedman’s choice.

Actually, this is not the only example of gutless placating of anti-Israel bloggers by the Post.

On Richard Silverstein’s anti-Israel blog Tikun Olam (link not provided, since he loves getting traffic), “Kane” asks a simple question in the comments:

# On August 26th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Kane said:

Richard,

I would be interested in hearing what you think of what Orgo said (Orgo had commented that there is no evidence connecting Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh to any terror attacks -ed.) Do you think Haniyeh is a terrorist or connected to terror attacks?

Thanks.

Silverstein responds:

# On August 26th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Richard Silverstein said:

@Kane: Haniyeh is less connected to terror attacks than Yitzchak Shamir was. Let me make clear that I’m no friend of Hamas. I wish there were another authentic, popular grassroots Palestinian political movement instead of it. I don’t like their politics or their willingness to embrace armed violent resistance. That being said, they ARE an authentic, grassroots popular movement. Until some other group can beat them in a legitimate election, they should be recognized as a legitimate government.

So there you have it, folks. Silverstein is clearly stating:

1. The leader of Hamas is less connected to terrorism than was a former Prime Minister of Israel.

2. Hamas engages in “resistance”, not terrorism.

Anti-Israel blogger Richard Silverstein has long denied he is anti-Israel or a supporter of terrorists.

I have long said he is full of it, and he has just confirmed it with a response to a question I left on his blog under the name “AD” (he obviously was not able to work out that AD stands for “Aussie Dave”):

On August 24th, 2008 at 10:02 am
AD said:

What do you think of the fact these “peace activists” are more than happy to meet with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh? Does that not disturb you?

Here’s a screen shot of Silverstein’s response (I prefer to take screenshots when it comes to Silverstein, since he has a propensity to delete/change his comments when confronted with the truth and is backed in to a corner). You can click on it to enlarge.

Besides the fact he clearly states there was nothing wrong with the Free Gaza people meeting with an arch terrorist like Haniyeh, notice how he places the words ‘Hamas terrorists’ in scare quotes, as if mocking the notion they are actually terrorists. At the very least, he cannot bring himself to use the word “terrorists” when talking of Hamas, an organization that openly talks of destroying Israel and has perpetrated numerous terrorist attacks towards this end.

Disgraceful.

Anti-Israel blogger Richard Silverstein sees the lesson of the recent terrorists-for-corpses exchanges as “Give them more!”

The lesson Israelis should learn, indeed must learn to avoid the terror attacks and the necessity for having national martyrs like Regev and Goldwasser, is precisely what the Olmert government seems to be learning–but far too late in its tenure. The only solution is a negotiated settlement. Start with Syria: return the Golan and Shebaa Farms. Insist on Syria turning off the spigot to Hezbollah and ceasing its meddling in Lebanese internal affairs. Insist that Syria turn off the arms flow from Iran that travels via Syria into Hezbollah armories.

Ok, so the guy is misguided at the worst, you may be saying. But it get worse. In the comments, he then posits that the IDF’s crimes could be worse than Kuntar’s crime (smashing in the skull of a 4-year-old girl):

In this blog, I have written a great deal about young IDF soldiers & Border Police who commit crimes almost as heinous as the one Kuntar committed. If you consider that the IDF weaponry is far more sophisticated than Kuntar’s then the crimes could even be seen as more heinous. I focussed on Kuntar in this post because he was freed yesterday.

Followed by this response to a commenter who had the gall to say “Most daming [sic] for his people is the fact that in their “civilization ” a murderer of Jews will always be treated as a hero and has never and will never be put on trial.”

Perhaps we could expect Arabs not to treat their own murderers as heroes & to try them in court when Israeli soldiers & police are not allowed to kill Palestinians civilians w. apparent impunity. What should Arabs believe about an Israeli “civilization” in which soldiers kill civilians and are almost never punished?

You have a twisted, racist view of Arab civilization.

There’s also this comment from Silverstein on a blog that tries to mitigate Kuntar’s crime on the basis he was 17 years-old at the time, and had been a child soldier from a broken home before he left to become a “fighter” (hat tip: Soccer Dad).

Brava and I agree. Thank you for your humanity which is always bracing & reassuring. And for pointing out Kuntar’s status as a child soldier at the tail end of the Lebanese civil war. This puts his crime into a diff. context (while not excusing it).

Of course, Silverstein ignores the fact Kuntar has had years to reflect on his actions, and has returned to Lebanon without remorse and determined to kill more Israelis.

True, Silverstein does not go so far as to applaud Kuntar, and does admit he is a murderer. But once again, he cannot unequivocally condemn Kuntar’s barbaric act without putting it “in context” and comparing it to the IDF’s conduct (an odious comparison).

Richard Silverstein, you should be ashamed of yourself.

But are no doubt not.

The Huffington Post has published a post by the detestable Richard Silverstein after being asked to write for them on the strength of his superb writing skills and impressive knowledge he harassed them long enough that they caved in.

I’ve been querying the editors for some time about writing for the site and this is my first acceptance.

Needless to say, the post contains somewhere between 0-1% fact (I give it perhaps 1%, since he spelled his name correctly). For example:

While Ahmadinejad articulates hatred for the U.S. and Israel and the wish that they would disappear (and don’t we feel the same way about his regime?), he has never advocated genocide against Israel. He certainly realizes, unlike McCain and Israeli right-wing politicians like Bibi Netanyahu, that Iran doesn’t have the capacity to seriously damage, much less eradicate Israel. This is yet another example of misusing the Holocaust for pure partisan political gain.

Meanwhile, on Silverstein’s own blog, the man who has decried the lack of civility by bloggers is trying to get one of his critics fired from his job. All because he has taken the bearded one to task, and even had the temerity to call him a liar.

Which he most definitely is.

But I have to hand it to Silverstein. He somehow manages to retain a deadpan sense of humor, despite being such a nasty piece of work.

One thing I never allow anyone commenting here to say is that I hate Israel. In fact, I love Israel and wouldn’t criticize it at all if I didn’t.

Despite the fact that I explained in great detail why he is barking up the wrong tree, Silverstein has decided to ignore all good sense, and continue in his quest to gain attention. Which is all well and good, and even understandable for someone who is admittedly “ever-ambitious and hungry for recognition of my blog.” Problem is, he is besmirching my name, and that of the Jerusalem Post, and spoiling the fun atmosphere of the JIBs.

After publishing my critique of the JIB Awards competition last night, it seems I struck a raw nerve among many of the right-wing bloggers whose material was quoted here. They came at me with both barrels blazing in the comment thread.

After publishing the post, I also asked the Jerusalem Post to comment on it. Derek Fattal provided some interesting background information about JIBA which, while attempting to reassure me, raised red flags regarding the fairness and openness of the nomination process.

My first post on JIBA noted that Aussie Dave’s Israelly Cool was a co-sponsor (he, in fact, created JIBA). It also noted that in the only two JIBA political categories almost all the nominees reflect a similar ideological slant to Israelly Cool (hardline anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, pro-settlements, etc.). I questioned why a competition calling itself the “Jewish and Israeli Blog Awards” couldn’t do a better job of representing the rest of us who are slightly to the left of Ze’ev Jabotinsky.

Well, now Mr. Fattal has provided some of the answer. Apparently, there IS an ideological criteria for being allowed into the process. Getting nominated isn’t the only hurdle. You have to pass a litmus test of sorts. Here’s how Derek described it:

Israellycool set up the JIB Awards on the basis that they would not include blogs whose raison d’entre was to criticize Israel. I was assured by Israellycool that blogs that included criticism of Israel would not be barred from the nomination process.

Which begs the question: when does a blog cross that threshhold from being one which criticizes Israel to one whose “raison d’etre” is to criticize Israel??

4. A blog is ineligible for being nominated if, although it is written by a Jewish blogger, the content of the blog is virulently anti-Israel, or even anti-Semitic. The test is “Is this [blog] considered anti-Israel/anti-Semitic by the layperson, regardless of his/her political orientation?”

Besides, if the process is as democratic as the Post claims, why should they exclude any Jewish or Israeli blog? Anti-Zionist Jewish blog? So what. Let the democratic process winnow out the cranks and extremists.

The word JIB, besides being an acronym for Jewish and Israeli blog, also represents the small triangular sail of a sailboat, as compared to the main sails. The jib’s role is to direct the wind into the main sail, just like a role of Jewish, Israeli, and pro-Israel bloggers is to direct world opinion in favor of Israel. And to really stretch the metaphor, the object of these awards is to direct new readers towards Jewish, Israeli, and pro-Israel blogs.

While weblog awards of this kind mean little in the grand scheme of things, they are a fun way to increase blog readership, and, in the case of the JIB Awards, promote Jewish, Israeli, and pro-Israel blogs.

Here’s an even more distressing fact from Derek noting that none other than Aussie Dave is the enforcer of these ideological criteria:

The nomination side was handled by Israellycool.com‚ I have not received any complaint from any blogger that their nominations have been rejected on political grounds. As far as I can see your blog would have been included had it been nominated.

You’ll note that Derek grants that my blog would’ve been eligible if he were the judge. But he wouldn’t be, now would he? Aussie Dave would be the judge. So let me throw out a challenge to him. Since I know he despises me and my progressive Zionist perspective on the conflcit, would he deem me eligible? Further, has he disqualified any blogs on political or ideological terms? And what level of criticism of Israel would be impermissible in JIBA?

In fact, if Silverstein had nominated himself, he may have even progressed to the voting rounds. Although it would have been a close call. As the rules state:

4. A blog is ineligible for being nominated if, although it is written by a Jewish blogger, the content of the blog is virulently anti-Israel, or even anti-Semitic. The test is “Is this [blog] considered anti-Israel/anti-Semitic by the layperson, regardless of his/her political orientation?”

I think that Silverstein has shown enough in the few posts of his that I have read that a layperson might consider him “virulently anti-Israel.” But I would have deferred to the Jerusalem Post’s opinion in case Silverstein had been nominated.

I’d also like to know if Aussie Dave nominated blogs himself and whether he voted in the competition. In my opinion, if he did either he further eroded the openness and fairness of the competition. I’d have no problem with his involvement in this fashion if he were just another blogger. But he’s a full co-sponsor and in fact the founder of the event. I think that sponsors have an obligation to allow others to judge such subjective questions as whether or not a blog is eligible based on political or ideological grounds.

So my problem with all this is that the Post tells me that Aussie Dave doesn’t control who gets nominated or wins. Maybe so. But theoretically, he controls which nominees get into competition by having veto power over that aspect of JIBA. Even if he hasn’t used it (note that Derek says he does not know of any such disqualification which is different than saying definitively it hasn’t happened), he could and that alarms me.

Finally, Derek says “the call for nominations was openly publicized to all readers on the Jerusalem Post site.” All well and good. But this competition is not called the “Jerusalem Post Blog Awards.” It’s called the “Jewish and Israeli Blog Awards,” indicating its pretension to embrace the broad diversity of the Jewish-Israeli blog world. Does the Post believe that its readers constitute a broad enough cross section of Jewish opinion regarding which are the best Jewish and Israeli blogs? What would be wrong with publicizing the event to readers of say, Haaretz.com, Nytimes.com or readers of progressive Jewish blogs? My suggestion that the Post make an effort to recruit broader participation in future met with this response from Mr. Fattal:

I believe that the spirit of the competition is open and democratic, and that our conduct has been correct.

What more need be said? The Post is perfectly happy with a skewed, unrepresentative competition. Who are we to carp about it?

I do not for even a moment believe, as Richard Silverstein suspects, that the nomination or voting for the JIBs is rigged in any way. The simple proof is the fact that Jewschool, a site which often presents incredibly controversial views on Israel, won second place for Best Israel Advocacy Blog last year, much to others’ chagrin (third place -ed.)

Aussie Dave may write and believe things which I think are just awful (and I know he feels the same about me), but there is no doubt in my mind that the JIBs, however flawed I think the nomination and voting system may be, are an entirely legitimate operation.

This year’s nominations and the poll leaders so far, speak much more, I think, to Jewish blog readership than towards the interests of Aussie Dave and his friends at Pajamas Media or the interests of The Jerusalem Post. The right-leaning blogs simply have a more committed readership, and I argue, a more obsessive and cocky readership than more secularly-oriented Jewish blogs like Jewschool.

—-

It is to this group who The JIBs most matter. They are the most active voters. They are the ones who race to make nominations. They are the ones who vote to vote against Jewschool. They are the ones who have voted LGF to the top of the Israel Advocacy list.

Thanks mon Generale. The enemy is at the gate about to overrun my comments thread: my how those JIBA righties hate to be uncovered for who they really are.

Anyway, I’ve come up w. some new dirt on JIBA at the blog post linked to this comment. Notably, that a nominated blog will be excluded whose “raison d’etre” is to criticize Israel (whatever the hell that means). And that Aussie Dave has power to determine which nominations are kosher and which treif. Sound like a transparent process to you?

And should anyone care to lv. a comment on either post I’d be grateful. It’s tough when you’re the only person supporting yr point of view among a snarling group of detractors.
Richard Silverstein | Homepage | 01.15.06 - 7:04 am | #

A few months ago, some insignificant blogger called Richard Silverstein decided to talk trash about Pajamas Media and its associated blogs - yours truly included. At the time, I rebutted his points, and pointed out many factual mistakes in his post, which he subsequently deleted instead of posting updates and leaving his original post intact (as blogger etiquette requires).

Despite the fact that he came out of that exchange looking rather foolish, he has not let that experience deter him. In fact, he has come back charging like a rabid dog. His target this time? The JIB Awards, yours truly, and nominated right-leaning blogs.

I was surfing the web and came across a site that featured the logo of the Jewish and Israeli Blog Awards. I’ve seen the logo before at some sites and never sat down and looked at it in any great detail. Being a progressive Jewish blogger who often blogs about Israel; and being ever-ambitious and hungry for recognition of my blog I thought I’d check it out for myself.

If you take a look at their logo here you’ll notice the two sponsors: the Jerusalem Post and Israelly Cool. A little ideological background is in order. The Post at one time in its history (I know because I read it sporadically when I lived in Israel for two academic years) was a sleepy little Anglo-Israeli paper that took an uneventfully centrist political stance on Israeli politics. That all changed when Conrad Black (does he still have that Lord’s title or do they take it away once you’re accused of a felony??) bought the paper, turning it into the spitting image of his neocon, hardline pro-Likud views.

Now the kleptomaniac buccaneer is gone. Derek Fattal, the Post’s director of internet services assures me that post-Black the Post moderated its politics:

The Post’s position in the local spectrum is now straight center on most issues and I don’t think many informed pundits would currently cast us as right wing.

But that’s what George Will would say about Sam Alito’s judicial philosophy, now wouldn’t he? It all depends on where you locate your center. One could believe the paper has moderated its views. But I don’t believe it will ever fully divorce itself from Lord Black’s political philosophy.

So you have a conservative Israeli daily allied with Israelly Cool. The latter is a hardline anti-Arab blog written by Aussie Dave, an Australian oleh (immigrant) to Israel. I should correct this statement. Dave doesn’t hate all Muslims. He only hates Muslim terrorists. Which Muslims does he have a hankering for?

I hate the Islamic terrorists, and I make a point to distinguish between them and moderate Muslims, for whom I have the utmost respect.

Here’s his description of one such individual profiled, where else, in the Jerusalem Post:

Yunis Owaidah [is] a PLO Arab who is proud of the fact that he collaborates with Israel.

The Jerusalem Post have [sic] a fascinating article on him, which I implore you all to read, if you have not already done so. Here is an appetizer:

Owaidah explained that he decided to work with Israel “because of the injustice we saw when we were under Jordanian rule before the 1967 war.”

“When the Jews came to Jerusalem, I saw how they were treating the people in a humane way,” he said. “By comparison, we had been oppressed by the Jordanians when they were here. Look how the Jews have built a modern and democratic state, and look where the Arabs still are.”

Dave, you see, loves the “good” Muslims, those few quislings who exist among millions of Palestinians. And oh how he hates the “bad” Muslims. Those are the really rotten ones who want a state of their own and who detest the Israeli Occupation.

Actually, Silverstein, you have to understand what an “Israeli collaborator” does. They tip-off the IDF as to the whereabouts of terrorists. You know, those people who have a habit of blowing up, shooting, and otherwise murdering people who happen to be Jewish? This allows our army to find the terrorists and kill them before the innocent people are killed. So yes, that makes them “good Muslims.” Does a Muslim have to be an Israeli collaborator to be a “good”? Of course not, but they have to oppose the deliberate murder of innocent people. Just like a Jew who does not oppose the deliberate murder of innocent people is not a “good Jew.” Come to think of it, Silverstein, I see that Rafah Pundits - a blog that posted an obituary of a vicious terrorist - is on your blogroll…

And Dave isn’t afraid of obliterating a few innocent Palestinians if it means the IDF or Shin Bet can bag a Palestinian militant in a targeted assassination:

While I am always opposed to the deliberate killing of innocent people, and saddened by any loss of innocent life, this does not mean that I oppose all targeted killings where innocent people are inadvertently killed.

I guess Dave doesn’t have much use for this famous dictum:

“it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict an innocent man.”

Furthermore, answer me this: if the allies had Hitler in their scopes and knew they could take him out, but perhaps some German civilians would be killed, would you support such an attempt on his life?

While I am always opposed to the deliberate killing of innocent people, and saddened by any loss of innocent life, this does not mean that I oppose all targeted killings where innocent people are inadvertently killed. It depends on the situation. Factors such as the elusiveness of the terrorist, his capability to kill innocent people, his role, and the opportunity to capture or kill him at another point without harming innocents, must be weighed against the possible number of innocent people that may be killed by attempting the targeted killing. I defer to the opinions of Israel security officials in these matters. This goes for the killing of Shehadeh. If it came out that we could have killed him without risk to the lives of civilians, then I would have opposed this action.

But what strikes me is why you did not ask why he deliberately chose to shield himself among civilians in a densely populated area. That to me is the real issue. He was the one who showed disregard for the lives of the civilians, and he is the one primarily responsible for their deaths.

I’ve written (see next link) about some of Aussie Dave more lovely characterizations of Palestinians and Muslims (Dave probably thinks “Palestinian” and “Muslim” are indistinguishable terms). Dave is also a member of Pajamas Media, that sterling collection composed of many pro-Likud bloggers founded by Roger Simon and Charles Johnson. I explored the pro-Likud bias of many of PJM’s bloggers here.

Which brings me to Johnson’s Little Green Footballs, a nominee in the Israel Advocacy category. How does a blog written by a non-Jew and non-Israeli get into a Jewish and Israeli Blogging Awards competition?

The word JIB, besides being an acronym for Jewish and Israeli blog, also represents the small triangular sail of a sailboat, as compared to the main sails. The jib’s role is to direct the wind into the main sail, just like a role of Jewish, Israeli, and pro-Israel bloggers is to direct world opinion in favor of Israel. And to really stretch the metaphor, the object of these awards is to direct new readers towards Jewish, Israeli, and pro-Israel blogs.

While weblog awards of this kind mean little in the grand scheme of things, they are a fun way to increase blog readership, and, in the case of the JIB Awards, promote Jewish, Israeli, and pro-Israel blogs.

I guess if you really stretch you could say that Charles always is looking to uphold the most extreme right wing viewpoints offered within Israeli politics. So perhaps that rates him an “honorary Israeli” designation. But seriously, one of the main reasons Charles gets nominated is that he in turn invited Aussie Dave to join him in Pajamas Media (see the latter’s profile). So it’s only natural that Dave would return the favor.

4. A blog is ineligible for being nominated if, although it is written by a Jewish blogger, the content of the blog is virulently anti-Israel, or even anti-Semitic. The test is “Is this [blog] considered anti-Israel/anti-Semitic by the layperson, regardless of his/her political orientation?”

Fattal assured me the competition had no ideological bias:

There are nominees of all political types and persuasions. Neither the Post nor Israellycool have any discretion over the voting and awards process.

Notice that saying there are nominees “of all political types and persuasions” doesn’t mean that the competition isn’t dominated overwhelmingly by conservative blogs (which it is,more on that shortly). Jesus’ General has already examined some of the nominees and highlighted some of their more outrageously hateful anti-Arab bile. Most of the quotations cited here come from this terrific post.

I thought I’d take a stroll myself through the field looking for political orientations. If you review the Israeli Advocacy category, you’ll first note the title. “Israeli advocacy” is a code word among Israel’s supporters for pushing the “Israel right or wrong” line in debate about the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Let’s test the hypothesis by examining the blogs nominated. I’ve written about Atlas Shrugged and its wild-eyed search for anti-Semites under every bed in my overview of the participants in the pro-Israel Pajamas Media blog. CAMERA Snapshots is the blog of Committee for Accuracy in Mideast Reporting in America. Those are the folks who are always accusing CNN, the New York Times and Washington Post of being anti-Israel because they cover both the Israeli and Palestinian side of the conflict. For CAMERA, writing a story about Palestinians is tantamount to anti-Israel propaganda. Or how about Joe Settler? Pretty much a given where this guy stands in the political divide. Ditto for Israpundit. You won’t find a dispassionate discussion of the conflict in any of these blogs. Of eleven blogs in “Group A” of this category, one, Dan “Mobius” Siedarsky’s Jewlicious, is progressive. Sound “fair and balanced” to you?

Oh, yes it’s a fine group of bloggers featured in this competition. A well-rounded slice of Jewish and Israeli life. Derek can make the claim that it’s a democratic selection process. But only because the nominees and those who nominate them are a self-selected group of hard-right pro-Israel bloggers.

I replied to Derek that when the Jerusalem Post severs its relationship with Aussie Dave and really attempts to recruit a broad cross section of Jewish and Israeli blogs, then it will be worthwhile for other types of blogs and bloggers to participate. Until that time, this competition is rigged for the right.

A word of explanation, there are MANY categories in the JIBS. I haven’t had time to explore every one. I selected the categories dealing with Israeli politics and examined them. There may be more diversity in some of the other categories. But please forgive me for being skeptical given what I found in my own review of the categories I chose to explore.