What could go wrong?
No, Arianna Huffington isn't partnering with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, yet, but
she is partnering with Al-Jazeera.
Arianna Huffington, the president and editor in chief of Huffington Post Media Group, was quite the social butterfly during a recent trip to Doha, Qatar. She hightailed it to the Persian Gulf nation on Jan. 7 to address a forum “on how social media can be used as a tool for building a country,” according to her Twitter feed.
...
Her tweets didn't mention, however, that Ms. Huffington is developing a video project for her ubiquitous site, and that the controversial Middle Eastern news organization could contribute programming. “We are working on a new video offering, which is yet to be announced,” a company spokesman confirmed. “The meeting [with Al-Jazeera] was in part to discuss any ways to work together on that.”
What could go wrong?
Labels: al-Jazeera, Huffington Post
The anti-Israel obsession at HuffPo
Huffington Post is known to be anti-Israel, despite the fact that the likes of Abe Foxman, David Harris and Alan Dershowitz continue to blog there.
How anti-Israel is Huffington Post? Consider
this article, which has nothing to do with Israel. It's all about Democrats' criticism of Republican drug-testing proposals. But look closely at the graphic chosen to illustrate the article (reproduced below). Look particularly at the writing at the top of the cup.
Yes, of course, it's Hebrew (Hat Tip:
Mike P). Talk about an anti-Israel obsession. They want to blame Israel for what they consider invasive drug testing in the US.
Anyone feel like typing an email to Foxman, Harris and/or Dershowitz to urge them to stop enhancing HuffPo's credibility (and traffic)?
Labels: anti-Israel obsession, Huffington Post, liberal media bias
World's largest blog ignores the facts
Proving once again its seemingly limitless capacity to ignore facts in order to push its hard Left ideological line, Arianna Huffington's 'news' site (which will soon be writing all news content for AOL) publishes a piece by one Ira Chernus (yes, of course
he's Jewish) claiming that Israel
has no security needs.
In the United States, though, the myth of insecurity is the taken-for-granted lens through which the public views everything about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Like the air we breathe, it’s a view so pervasive that we hardly notice it.
Nor do we notice how reflexively most Americans accept the claim of self-defense as justification for everything Israel does, no matter how outrageous. That reflex goes far to explain why, in the latest Gallup poll matchup (“Do you sympathize more with Israel or the Palestinians?”), Israel won by a nearly 4 to 1 margin. And the pro-Israeli sentiment just keeps growing.
Our politicians, pundits, and correspondents breathe the same air in the same unthinking fashion, and so they hesitate to put much pressure on Israel to change its ways. As it happens, without such pressure, no Israeli government is likely to make the compromises needed for a just and lasting peace in the region. Instead, Israel will keep up its attacks on Gaza. In addition, if the Palestinians declare themselves an independent state come September, as many reports indicate might happen, Israel will feel free to quash that state by any means necessary -- but only if Washington goes on giving it the old wink and nod.
If American attitudes and policies are ever to change, one necessary (though not in itself sufficient) step is to confront and debunk the myth of Israel’s insecurity.
It's really easy to pooh-pooh Israel's security needs from the safety of Boulder, Colorado, isn't it? But the entire reason that Israel has the type of military superiority that Chernus describes is that we have Judea and Samaria. If we give them up, we go back to being a state that is nine miles wide at its narrowest point, in the heart of our population and industrial centers. That means zero warning time against air attacks, and almost zero warning time against ground attacks.
Who still wants to attack us? Well, Egypt - even under Mubarak - always used Israel as the foil in its war games scenarios. Lebanon under Hezbullah is spoiling for a fight. So are the 'Palestinians' in both Judea and Samaria and Gaza (no difference between Hamas and Fatah there. And then there's Iran and Iraq and Syria. Jordan might be afraid to attack us, but they won't hesitate to let anyone else through. So where are we so secure?
Nuclear weapons? Assuming that we have them, we have already proven that we will get to pretty dire circumstances (see "Yom Kippur War") and still not use them. Second strike capability? That won't stop the suicidal Islamists from striking us, God forbid, and I would rather be alive than be able to take someone else with me through a second strike capability.
In summary, contrary to Chernus' assertion from 8,000 miles away, we most definitely are subject to military attack.
If you think our lives aren't in constant danger from terrorism, you're not watching or listening to the news and you're not reading the daily IDF updates on how many terrorists are being arrested each night, night in and night out, in Judea and Samaria. Were it not for the IDF presence in Judea and Samaria, 2003 would never have come to an end. Were it not for the presence of revenants in Judea and Samaria, a long-term IDF presence would not be sustainable. God has protected us for the last 40 years from the stupidity of politicians who wanted to pull us out.
The fact that the 'crude' Kassam rockets have not killed more people is not for the 'Palestinians' lack of effort. It's because - unlike them - we try to protect our population. The shelters, Iron Dome, the constant IDF actions all have minimized the number of Israeli casualties. Were these measures not taken, we would still be living with 2000-03 terror attacks.
As to the threat of delegitimization, unfortunately, by the end of the General Assembly session in September, Israel could yet find itself as isolated as South Africa was during the apartheid period.
One final thought: Name me one other country that fought and won a defensive war and then returned its territorial gains. For that matter, name me one other country that has ever fought such a war and then faced demands to give back the territory it won.
I doubt you'll find one.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Huffington Post, Ira Chernus, Israeli security needs
HuffPo downplays the Fogel family massacre?
Has the World's
most widely read blog tried to play down the massacre of five members of a Jewish family in the Samarian town of Itamar nearly two weeks ago?
According to Huff Watch's extensively documented evidence, the answer to that question is a resounding
yes.
But apparently, to HuffPost, there was one little problem with the story of the Fogel family:
They were Jewish...
... and it was Palestinian Muslims who had incited attacks on them, reportedly perpetrated this grisly murder, were taking credit for it, celebrating it and calling for more.
And that discrepancy is what apparently caused HuffPost to do everything it could to downplay, depersonalize and quickly remove the story, while giving nonsense "news" stories higher, sustained billing. (What kind of "nonsense," you may ask? You'll have to see it to believe it.)
That's a tough allegation. Fortunately, as in all previous cases in which we've made tough allegations against HuffPost regarding its anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist bias, and its incitement and tolerance of hate against Israel and Jews, we've organized an encyclopedic body of physical evidence to validate every contention.
We closely monitored HuffPost and other news sources that it routinely accesses --- and top conservative, pro-Israel blogs --- from the night of the slaughter (March 11) through March 21, to see how it dealt with all aspects of it. We took volumes of screencaps, and even videos to show what was --- and was not --- on HuffPost's pages at the time.
Below are our findings, broken down into ten allegations --- all of which are validated by an extremely detailed, supplemental Evidence File.
Read it all.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Huffington Post
Will news on the internet come only (or mostly) from the Left?
Here's an interesting
comment by Ben Smith regarding the AOL-Huffington Post merger. While this isn't directly about Israel, it certainly affects us because the Right's coverage of Israel is far more favorable than the Left's.
Read it all.
Labels: AOL, Huffington Post, liberal media bias
No, Arianna Huffington isn't partnering with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, yet, but she is partnering with Al-Jazeera. 
