UPI: Israel Boycott "Absurd"

I'm uncomfortable with all the anonymous sources in this article, about the fruitlessness and stupidity of the Arab boycott of Israel. But I'm even more annoyed that people are still too frightened to tell the truth using their own names!
--Wendy Leibowitz

DAMASCUS, Syria April 23 (UPI) -- The Arabs set up an organization decades ago to boycott Israel to isolate the Jewish state, but the effectiveness of the boycott dwindles by the year.

Sources close to a four-day meeting that opened in Damascus Monday are describing the conference's agenda as "ridiculous" in the wake of pressure on Arabs to abandon "the weapon of the boycott."

The sources told United Press International on condition of anonymity the "absurdity" of the agenda was a reflection of the pressures placed on the Arab countries by Western powers led by the United States.

"The participating Arab countries in the conference are like someone drowning and trying to prove he is still alive, especially after previous meetings have failed in imposing a ban on multinational firms" dealing with Israel, one source said.

The Central Arab Boycott Office was established by the 22-member Arab League in 1951, three years after the state of Israel was established in part of Palestine, to boycott Israeli products and international firms working with Israel. But the effectiveness of the boycott on the Israeli economy began to dwindle in the early 1990s after the Middle East peace process was launched.

Officials said 14 Arab countries were taking part in the current meeting, with Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania absent, having reached peace agreements with Israel. They complained the West, particularly the United States, has been pressing the Arabs to abandon the boycott on the grounds that it is counterproductive to the peace process, now frozen for several years.

http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Briefing/2007/04/23/arab_meeting_on_israel_boycott_absurd/

Bangladesh: a new Jihadist center

Bangladesh is becoming a new center for Islamist extremism, according to this article by Salahuddin Shoaib Choudhury:

 

 

Incidents of extremism and terrorism have witnessed a sharp increase in Bangladesh in recent years, with the number of attacks last year exceeding the total number of incidents in the preceding five years. Most of the attacks have been directed against religious minorities, secular intellectuals and journalists as well as against politicians belonging to secular parties and leftist activists. Islamist extremists have sought to impose an Islamic way of life on people in rural areas, often through the use of force. Women have been coerced into veiling themselves and men have been forced to grow beards and wear skull caps.

 

According to terrorism experts and several analysts, Bangladesh is increasingly recognized as the locus of a significant and expanding threat emanating from radicalized Islamist extremist mobilization and its systematic transformation into political and terrorist violence. Notwithstanding vociferous official denials, it has, for some time now, been an established staging post for terrorism within the region, and is seen as a potential center of Islamist consolidation for the "global jihad" as well.

 

Worse, these processes are rooted in an entrenched political dynamic that has progressively diminished the space for secular or moderate politics in the country. Given the polarization and extreme hostility between the two dominant political parties in Bangladesh, and the near complete split down the middle in voting patterns, the Islamist parties have become central to the processes of government formation in the country, and have gradually expanded their political presence as well. These trends have been compounded further by the combination of religious mobilization, intimidation and extremist violence that these radical parties and their armed allies engage in, as well as their very wide and expanding presence in the social sector, particularly education. Given these broad trends, the scope for any reversal of the Islamist extremist consolidation in Bangladesh has shrunk progressively.

 

Salahuddin should know, because he has been warning about this trend for several years, and is living in a nightmare of legal persecution because of his warnings.

 

Ami Isseroff  

Hamas attack was a cover for kidnap attempt

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- A rocket and mortar attack carried out Tuesday morning by the armed wing of Hamas was a cover for an attempt to kidnap an Israeli soldier, Israeli military sources told CNN.

Hamas' militant wing, Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement on its Web site -- the first attack since a shaky truce with Israel took effect five months ago.

The group's spokesman, Abu Obeida, promised "a cruel and painful response to any aggression in the Strip [Gaza]" and said in the statement, "we want to remind Zionist forces that we still hold Gilad Shalit and we are still prepared to kidnap others."

 

Full article: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/24/hamas.rockets/index.html

 

Any excuse to damage Israel is good for the criminal Hamas. Lies are usually told to justify the unjustifiable.

 

Thomas Braun, Lima, Peru

Hamas fireworks for Israel Independence day

In honor of Israel's Independence day, Hamas claims they fired about 40 rockets into into Israel, breaking the "truce." Israeli sources say that about two rockets and six mortar shells actually landed in Israel.  This is not much different from what has been happening until now, except that Hamas now claims credit for it.

 

Hamas broke the truce after Israel killed 9 Palestinians in Gaza. Israel killed 9 Palestinains in Gaza however, because they were firing rockets on Israel.

 

It was a day like all days: IDF discovered and detonated 20 kilos of explosives in the West Bank. In Gaza, Palestinians killed a twelve year old caught in cross-fire and a few others were injured when a bomb they were making went off. "Do not try this stunt in your home."

 

Meanwhile, IDF also arrested a good number of fugitives in the West Bank. Another Independence Day...

 

Posted at Israel News and Middle East Analysis

 

Ami Isseroff

NUJ Boycott: "Neither Balanced Nor Fair"

Curiouser and Curiouser

The Guardian newspaper of Britain, which is usually knee-jerk anti-Israel, with an emphasis on "jerk," came out with an editorial criticizing the National Union of Journalists' recent decision to boycott Israel, calling it "a curious business." Indeed, it is curious to lash out at Israel a time when a Palestinian organization is holding British journalist Alan Johnon hostage. Ignoring his fate is part of what unions do as a reluctance to criticize "the Palestinian occupied and oppressed." It is also curious that British journalists in Israel are ignoring the boycott, and there are no signs that anyone will obey or enforce the boycott in any way.

But it's even "curiouser," as Alice in Wonderland might say, that the Guardian criticized the union's action, and that the action might be withdrawn. Perhaps cracks are starting to appear in the relentless anti-Israel rhetoric, that does nothing to help the Palestinians, and a lot to demonize those calling for a boycott of the only country in the region with anything approaching a free press. --Wendy Leibowitz

Neither balanced nor fair

Leader
Friday April 20, 2007
The Guardian

The decision of the National Union of Journalists to urge a boycott against Israel is a curious business. The union - currently celebrating its centenary - has a decent enough record of defending press freedom in this country and abroad. At its annual delegate meeting last week it debated a strong resolution condemning the apparent kidnapping of the BBC Gaza correspondent, Alan Johnston, as well as other motions about the threats to journalists in Ethiopia, Russia and Zimbabwe. Such declarations of concern matter. All recent surveys of journalism around the world show that, in virtually every region, there are determined attempts to suppress the fundamental right to report news; at least 100 journalists died in the course of their work last year. The voice of journalists in Britain deserves to make itself heard and to be taken seriously.

How seriously can one take the same conference's decision (with 66 votes in favour and 54 against) to pass a resolution urging the boycott of all Israeli goods in protest at that country's "savage pre-planned attack on Lebanon"? If it were press freedom in the Middle East that truly concerned delegates, Israel - which has a comparatively open and robust domestic press - would hardly be the obvious starting point. One might, for example, rather focus on Iran, Libya or Syria. If, on the other hand, the journalists' union prefers to busy itself with individual governments' foreign policies then, again, there is no shortage of unsavoury regimes around the world which might merit some form of consumer boycott.

There are a number of reasons why the NUJ boycott motion was misguided - and the exceptionalism of focusing on Israel and its foreign policy is certainly one of them. But there are equally troubling editorial aspects to a motion which strays beyond the reasonable and traditional concerns of a journalists' union. All reporters covering the Israel-Palestine story know that every single word they write will be weighed and scrutinised by both sides for fairness, balance, accuracy, sourcing and general integrity.

This is perhaps the most complex, long-running and intractable international dispute in the world. It is likely that a majority of British journalists covering the story are members of the NUJ. It is doubtful that many of them will have welcomed a motion which will inevitably be seen by some as casting doubts on whether they can truly approach their work in a spirit of fairness and distinterested inquiry. In a statement this week the union's general secretary, Jeremy Dear, pointedly said that it was open to union members to seek to overturn the decision. They would be well advised to do so.

COMMENT
April 20, 2007 4:12 AM
Why should anyone suggest boycotting Israel rather than Syria, Libya or Iran ? Which of the four countries named have not bombed another country, invaded another country, and are not involved in the military occupation of another country ?

COMMENT
If the members of the NUJ feel that this call for a boycott of Israeli goods balances their criticism of the Zimbabwe situation or might help free the BBC's Gaza reporter, for example, I wish them luck and I do hope that it would produce the desired results.

One wonders, though, how this boycott would be practiced by those members operating in Israel. I see a bright future for various international freight companies, working busily to sustain and airlift providing ``kosher'' (not the best of terms) goods for the observing members.

COMMENT
It is exactly this sort of fatuity that brings unions into disrepute - gesture politics at its very worst. An empty gesture at that.

COMMENT
April 20, 2007 8:43 AM
Just when I had thought that I had correctly classified The Guardian as a radical left anti-Israel publication, they turn my opinion upside down with an admirable piece such as this. I wish we could read more items like this that provide The Guardian's readers with a better opportunity to form their own opinions about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, rather than being continually fed pro-Palestinian propaganda.

Contrary to what most Gaurdian readers are led to believe, there are two sides to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and readers are entitled to hear the Israel side sometimes too. They are at least entitled to occasionally hear an unbiased and balanced view (neither Palestinian nor Israeli) such as the one expressed in today's Guardian Leader article.

So, is the sun rising in The Guardian at long last?

COMMENT

April 20, 2007 9:02 AM
This exceedingly stupid NUJ decision has another unwelcome effect. We need foreign journalists in conflict zones to report excesses, human right abuses, all the terrible aspects that accompany conflict. Certainly, we need such reporting from Israel and from Palestine. Yet, to be believed, to maintain basic reliability, reporters must exhibit essential impartiality and professionalism. Boycotting one side to a conflict exhibits neither.

Next time a British journalist reports on excesses of occupation, he or she will be open to the allegation of belonging to a trade union whose official policy is biased against Israel. Whether they are right or wrong, they will be dismissed out of hand. And this proves, if any further proof was ever needed, why knee-jerk postures have an ultimate effect in defiance of their avowed intention.

More comments at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2061803,00.html

NUJ Insults our intelligence, claims boycott of Israel will not affect reporting

NUJ Boycott Explanation: Boycott Israel because Palestinians Kidnap Reporter

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/04/nuj-boycott-explaination-boycott-israel.html

Below is the entire text of a reply sent by the UK National Union of Journalists regarding their recent vote to boycott Israeli goods. The people who prepared this statement do not, apparently, grasp the full illogic of this paragraph:

 

The call for the boycott in part related it to the kidnap of Alan Johnston. The Palestinian journalists union has given huge support to the campaign for his release - holding demonstrations and strikes against the Palestinian authority to demand more action from them. We work closely with the Palestinian union through the International Federation of Journalists and the boycott call was a gesture of support for the Palestinian people - notably those suffering in the siege of Gaza, the community Alan Johnston has been so keen to help through his reporting.

Previously I had pointed out the perversity of punishing Israel because Palestinian terrorists kidnapped a British reporter. It seems that is exactly what these people want to do!! The equivalent approximately, would be if a British union in World War II had published a resolution condemning Poland for the Blitzkreig.

 

Click for more about the NUJ Israel boycott here

Let's review some recent history, circa 2004, about the Palestinian Authority leadership's kleptocracy.

Arafat's Swiss Bank Account

by Issam Abu Issa
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2004

Issam Abu Issa, former chairman of the Palestine International Bank, currently resides in Qatar. He is founder of the Palestinian National Coalition for Democracy and Independence, a Palestinian democratic reform movement.

Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are known internationally for the violence between Israelis and Palestinians. As ruinous as that violence has been, another cancer permeates Arafat's administration; its name is corruption. From firsthand experience, I understand just how deep it is. Here is what I know.

Full article: http://www.meforum.org/article/645

Thomas Braun, Lima, Peru.