An honest conversation about dishonesty.

 So, Trevor Noah asks an honest question about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Good for him. Honesty cannot ever be overrated. Now it’s time to have an honest conversation about his honest question. A question that wasn’t honest, and wasn’t a question.

His visual essay was not meant for me, Obviously. My allegiances are with Israel. It was meant for the general neutral public. Those of them that stand on the sideline. Wanting to help; but are unable to do so because it looks so protracted and too complex to resolve. He pointed out just how pointless it is, because we can indeed choose every point in time we like, and each time a different side will look guilty. Every standing on the sidelines neutral will a have lot of empathy for him over that. A “he is exactly where I am” kind of feeling; a strong one. But if this is how he sees it, then why did he choose a date for the beginning of the conflict in the first place? 73 years, he says. That is the how long Israel exists as a state. For those that do not know.

It is a strange pick. First, because he later spoke emphatically against doing that very thing, picking dates. Second, because most people place the beginning of the conflict at the end of WW1. It could be a case of ignorance on his part. After all, one of his technique to generate empathy was to state at the very beginning that he will probably miss a few important details. But he also adds another, supposedly, historic fact. “The British took the land from the Palestinians,” he says. So, he does know it begun in WW1. So why choose a later date, when you know it’s the wrong one? And why phrase it the same way the Palestinian narrative describes the Balfour declaration? 

Avoiding mentioning specific dates that are also controversial, helps focus on the main point someone wants to deliver. And Trevor’s main point? “Let’s look at who is dead and who is alive.” Alright. Let’s look at who is dead, and how they died. At the time of his piece, around 28 Palestinians were killed. Among them, 10 children. And around 150 wounded. With 2 deaths on the Israeli side. His numbers. Horrifying and sad, all the more a reason to look into that. So, let’s go back to these early Palestinian deaths. Were they all killed by Israeli fire? Or was it, in some cases, by Hamas’ missiles that fall short, and into Palestinian civilian areas? And those that were killed by Israeli fire. Were they human shields for Hamas’ weaponry and missiles? Were they warned by Israel to clear away before the attack? Were they all killed or hurt by Israeli fire? Or was it secondary explosions, or simple traffic accidents as many people fled? And what about accessible shelters to the general population? where there any nearby?

Like it or not, that is what looking at who is dead and who is alive means. It may not necessarily remove the main blame from Israel. But without mentioning it Hamas becomes blameless for those. Ignoring that possibility isn’t an accidental omission. It is an obvious expression of one sidedness. But Trevor is indeed not looking at that. He is looking away from that. And into technology. “Set aside motives and intentions and look at technology alone,” he says. He actually said that, set aside motives and intentions. How are people supposed to resolve a conflict if they don’t understand it? And how are they supposed to understand it if they are not looking at motives and intentions? If Trevor does not want to resolve the conflict, why bring it into focus in the first place?

Instead of motives and intentions he focuses on technology and the general strength of Hamas vs the bigger general strength of Israel. It’s the bigger picture, where individual suffering does not exist. To be clear it is an important subject that should be discussed. It is related to the other issues. But, like all of them, it is also separated. So, let’s go alone with it anyways. Trevor’s argument, Israel is so strong it doesn’t need to response. Iron Dom is so perfect it can take down anything in the sky. 2 people were already dead, more will die on the Israeli side later; so, it obviously has limits. And no that isn’t a surprise. Everybody knows that. This is why Hamas and Hizbullah have been stockpiling missiles. So, they can overwhelm this defense system. President Obama pointed to that fact in his Jerusalem speech. You do know who that is Trevor? You did interview him once, didn’t you?

He explains his argument with analogs. First, as a conflict among siblings. Him as Israel, his little brothers as Hamas.  Really? Sibling rivalry has its nastiness. However, when one of them is hurt, let’s say with a sickness, the other will feel the same fear and anxiety as the rest of the family. No matter how hard he/she will try to conceal it. Nasty sibling rivalry among states is a hockey match between Canada and the USA. And Trevor, has any of your siblings ever came at you with a knife? If that happened, and I hope it didn’t, I’m sure your mother would have reacted very differently.

He is defensive about this analog; fully aware it could be interpreted as infantilizing the Palestinians. But that does not infantilize them. It’s just a bad analog. Denying them any agency does that. He moves to another analog; police disarming a man with a knife. And I am so glad he did that because that is not an analog. The situation between Israel and Gaza is an extreme version of this supposed analog. With one major difference. It is not a cop vs a man with a knife walking in the street. It’s a cop vs a man with a knife that is right now stabbing someone else. So, what should the policeman do, Trevor? Go and grab him, risking injury that would prevent the officer from helping? Grab his own knife, and repeat the same risks? Use his gun but only shoot at the assailer’s leg? It would keep him safe but won’t necessarily stop the stabbing. Or shoot to kill? And to be frank, that bullet could also hurt the person he is trying to save. Complicated, isn’t it? A gun though, has one advantage. It is fast. While we are contemplating all these alternatives, the victim is been stabbed over and over again. He/she is bleeding more and more, accumulating injuries that are more difficult to fix. Assuming we can get him/her to a hospital on time. And this is the hypocrisy of Trevor’s fair fight argument. This argument, typical to the anti-Israel narrative, not only wants us to choose between fairness and the safety of our civilian population. It demands us to choose this fairness over the safety of our civilians. How fair is that to them?

But of course, he is not demanding anything. He is just asking an honest question. An extremely bent honest question. But let’s go alone with it anyways. His last question, what is the responsibility of the strongest party? Great question. Let’s explore that. What is that responsibility according to international law? What are the operational-challenges Israel faces in order to fulfill those requirements? How do the actions of the IDF meet or fail to meet those requirements; while taking into account the military situation on the battlefield? Like it or not that is what you analyze when you examine responsibility.

Complicated, isn’t it? But we cannot answer that question. It’s the end of the segment. The thing is, we don’t have to answer that question. Trevor had already suggested the answer to us by emphasizing every negative thing about Israel. It’s not a fair fight, Israel is the stronger party, force isn’t necessary because of Iron Dome is perfect. More casualties on the Palestinian side. Showing Israeli police storming the al Aqsa mosque, but not the violence they were responding to, a dramatic news bulletin that begins with Israel’s reaction. Whatever makes Israel look bad, correctly or incorrectly is front and center. Whatever makes the Palestinian side looks bad is largely dismissed or ignored.

In Trevor Noa’s 8.53 minutes piece about honesty in discussing the Israeli Palestinian conflict, dishonesty is the dominating subtext. He delivers an amazing performance convincing he is one of the anguishing neutrals. But everything in it is in support of one side, the Palestinian side. He slides inside the Palestinian narrative about the Belfour declaration, in a way only someone familiar with it can. He emphasizes only things that make Israel look bad; be it actual matters, or angles on complex situations. The entire direction of his video is against Israel. It is not the conclusion of it, because nothing has been analyzed, so no conclusion can be made. And it does end with an open question.

To be clear, he has every right to be on the Palestinian side. To support it, to believe in its narrative, and to publicize it. But to pretend to be neutral while doing so?

And it doesn’t end there. He argues against looking into past, (while inserting his view of the past), because it is too complex. As if the other aspects of the conflict are not complex. however, every direction he takes has its complexities. Looking at who is dead, fairness, the responsibility of the stronger party, land, economy, religion, governments, etc. All have their own complexities. Discussing anyone of them isn’t much different than discussing the past. And any person that can understand them can understand the past. But Trevor isn’t discussing any of them. He is moving from one theme to the next as if they are one and the same. And using them to paint Israel in a darker light.

One of the complexities of the conflict is that they are all connected. Including the past. The past is one of the main reasons why it is ongoing. The past is where we can find what the Palestinian side did when it was the stronger party. It started with classical pogroms, and moved to armed death squads, targeting and massacring civilian populations. And kept on doing it until these very days. Only this time relaying more on artillery.  And yes, I know, I just put forward a key part of the Israeli narrative. It is a war of narratives. That is what every decent person that did try to go beyond the complexities will tell you.

Trevor’s questions were nothing but a literary tool. Which he used brilliantly. It is too bad they were waisted on this unequivocal dishonesty.       

James J. Zogby, lies and fauxtography

James J. Zogby is a respected public figure in the USA, and a known critic of Israel. Recently the blog Elder of Zion caught him tweeting a lie. He published four photos depicting encounters between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians, all suggesting aggression and abuse by the Israeli side. One of them was a badly edited photo that I had the honor of busting years ago.  Exposing that hoax was easy since the original picture was available.  But even without it, the final result had its own credibility problem.  Namely, a supposedly threatening Israeli soldier, standing in an unnatural position, with knees folded, while carrying a backpack and a heavy gun. The best way to describe his position is that of sitting on air. Only circus acrobats can do that while carrying heavy cargo. And even they would not be able to threaten anyone at the same time.

Two other photos have similar credibility problems. One of them claims to show two armed Israeli soldiers abusing four Palestinian women and a toddler.  The problem is that the image of the soldier aiming his gun at them does not make sense. This soldier is holding an assault weapon with just one hand. He is holding it at the middle of the weapon, were the trigger is. Holding the weapon like that will harm his wrist. And if he was to fire it, he would not have been able to control the recoil; risking injuries to himself and to the soldier next to him. Another problem is the shadow the rear side of the gun leaves on his upper arm. While the rear of the rifle is a complete cylinder like structure, its shadow is more cone-like, with many gaps in it. The weapon itself is carried sideways, an odd position during patrol.

It is also worth noting that the two soldiers appear dressed for different seasons. The big smiling soldier on the right is dressed more warmly than the gun carrying soldier on the left. He wears a heavy coat that covers all the way to the neck and a pair of fury gloves; while the other soldier has uniforms, fitting lighter weather conditions.

The third picture shows a soldier aiming his weapon at a small child. We can say that with a sense of confidence, because he is aiming his weapon in a downwards position. What other reason he could possibly has to do that to a women and child that are just walking by?

Fake

Based on the information in that picture it is a clear case of a soldier abusing his power against a small child. One problem though, the picture is fake, edited. Look at the ditch the woman is over-passing. This ditch is coming downward from the hill, were the terraces are located. Terraces, agriculture on the hillsides, are the main form of Palestinian agriculture in the West Bank. What is this ditch supposed to do? Deliver water from the hill, were they are needed, downwards? Or maybe the water in that ditch goes upwards by itself? Maybe there is an explanation that the picture did not catch, some kind of structure, or a field. There isn't! I can say that with the utmost confidence because I have found a picture depicting the original scene. It took some time, but I have found it. And the ditch is nowhere to be seen.

Real

Comparing the two photos, shows that the one tweeted by Zogby was definitely edited. It also shows that the main scene in both pictures is the same. For Israel this pretty damming, but if this is the case why edit the photograph?

The answer is in what was edited out. According to the caption above the real photo, found at Getty images, this picture was taken on January 2004 at the Hawara checkpoint by AFP photographer Jaaffar Ashtiye. This information is valuable, and you won't find it in the fake image.  The photographer says in the caption that the soldier is aiming his weapon at a mother and a child.  However, at this close distance he can only aim it at one of them. Since the photographer is a Palestinian, he obviously has his biases, which affects his explanations of what he sees and photographs; (as do I have as an Israeli). We can see his biases in his description of the background situation. However, this does not affect the objectivity of this photo. He describes the soldier as aiming a weapon at two persons because he cannot tell who it is aimed at. The angle of the camera keeps him from doing that. It is clear that even the person that took the real photograph, the unedited one, cannot tell if the weapon is aimed against the child or not.

It is not aimed against the child!

I know that for a fact not because I am bias; and not because I know for a fact that the IDF is the most moral army on Earth. Even if we accept as a fact James Zogby's view of the IDF, as the most oppressive evil armed force on Earth, there is no way this soldier was aiming his weapon at the child. If he had done that, that would be not only an abuse of power against the weak, helpless, and undefended. It would also be a gross dereliction of duty.

There are four things we need to remember about the real picture. It is January 2004, not long after a wave of suicide bombing and other types of terrorist attacks that murdered hundreds of Israelis. These are attacks that occurred nearly every day. This is the Hawara checkpoint, southwest of Nablus, along the security barrier. The security barrier is a major factor in reducing the success rate of such monstrous attacks into near zero. The checkpoints monitor the entry of Palestinians into Israel, and are a key part of that security. IDF soldiers are not mind readers. And there are, and there have been women terrorists. The main job of this soldier, and the others at the checkpoints, is to prevent terrorists from entering Israel and attacking civilians in major population centers. If he was aiming his weapon at the child, he wouldn't have been aiming it at the mother.

Was she a terrorist?

Probably not.

Most likely not.

But until it is verified there is a slim chance that she is. Given the horrific nature of such attacks a slim chance is a risk not worth taking. Not professionally, and not personally, since the victims could be people close to this soldier. They could be family, they could be friends, and they could be friends of friends. It does not matter. He will still have to look at the survivors, and relatives in the eyes, when he goes back home.  Until it is verified, she could be hiding a bomb or a weapon in her bag or beneath her coat. So until it is verified that she is not a terrorist, the soldier must aim his weapon at her, and not the child, who is definitely not a terrorist. If she is a terrorist, and he aims his weapon at the child, he could create an opportunity for her to attack the soldiers at the checkpoint, or smuggle a bomb into Israel. If we had even a handful of such bad soldiers, the frequency of successful terrorist attacks inside Israel, would have been far greater.

So, why is he aiming his weapon downwards?

This is the razor-sharp dilemma he is going through, him, and the entire IDF. What if she is a terrorist? What if is she is not?

The only way to stop a terrorist about to attack is by firing at him immediately. And the best way to do that is by aiming at the upper body, where the injuries are more lethal. This guarantees to stop the terrorist's attack. As the white dirt on the soldier's elbow indicates, this was how he was aiming before she came close.

But what if she is not a terrorist? Why risking accidentally killing an innocent person?

This is why he employs two measures to defend her. He aims his weapon to the lower body, where the injuries are less lethal, and he keeps his trigger finger, away from the trigger. This way he is been both moral, keeping her safe as a civilian, and provides an effective defense to Israeli civilians, should it turn out that she is a terrorist. This is not an ideal solution; it has its pluses and minuses for both sides.

This explains the "odd" behavior of the second soldier, the unarmed one. We see more of him in the edited footage because the real picture, the one from Getty images, is not the source material for the forgery. Photojournalists take many pictures in quick succession, in a short amount of time. Therefore, there had to be more pictures depicting this original scene. One of them, taken almost immediately after the published one, is the source material for the forgery. Both of them show this soldier walking close to the arched wall. They show him keeping a large distance between himself and the woman with the child. Why is he doing that? Is he afraid of them? Are we to assume that when one soldier is abusing them, the other is afraid of them? Does that make sense? The only way this makes sense is that they're both doing their job, one is providing security, the other is checking papers, and looking for hidden weapons. He is keeping to the wall in order not to get into the firing line. He also keeps a safe distance from her in order to have enough time to response should she attack him. When the soldier handling security is been lenient for humanitarian reasons, the soldier handling the verification process must be extra cautious.   

Israel's "critics" may dismiss this explanation, but there is one person that agrees with this; the forger; the one that created the fake photograph used by Joseph Zogby. Why else, edit the photograph? What reason is there to edit out the checkpoint? The Israeli checkpoints along the West Bank are the target of a lot of outrage by opponents of Israel, with claims of abuse, ordeal, and worse. There is not supposed to be any reason for a critic or a hater to remove the checkpoint from the image. But much like those fake pictures, first impression is misleading. First, who said this outrage is based on accurate information? Second, anyone familiar with the issues that make up the Israeli Palestinian conflict knows that any true discussion of the checkpoints will bring up the Israeli side of the issue: The right of all Israeli civilians, men, women, and children for security; and the duty of the Israeli government, any government; and its armed forces; to provide it! And Israel's haters wish to erase that. They are really not that different from the terrorists that physically erase those lives. 

They have another thing in common with them; Palestinians lives do not mater to them. Look at that ditch. It had been added to create the illusion that the mother and the child are just walking by. And therefore the soldier aiming his weapon at them is doing so in an arbitrary, and  abusive way. To make the ditch look authentic, the forger extended it towards the hill. But for anyone who knows a little bit of the Palestinian way of life in the West Bank this is a major red alert regarding the authenticity and credibility of the picture. As said above, the hills are where the terraces are. This an agricultural way of life that grows crops along the hillsides, in order to gather the rain water as they fall downhill. This is a method that won't be sending water downhill in a ditch. They are heading there anyway. This is something the author of the fake photo should know. This person, either does not care to know, or knows and does not care. Once ordinary Palestinians have no more use as propaganda pawns they are tossed aside into oblivion. This is the same disregard for human lives that Hamas and Islamic Jihad practice when they use Palestinian civilians as human shields.

And now we come to the last photograph, the only real one in this quartet.

Real but partial

The fact that it is real, unedited and not fake, does not means it does not have its own problems of credibility. First, one real photo does not redeem three fake ones. Second, context. Context is always important. In this case it is the impression created by three fake images. Since the images are fakes, so is the context they create. Third, the picture is indeed an upsetting sight. No one likes to see a child been arrested by a lot of men, each bigger than him. Rest assured that the soldiers doing this arrest do not like doing it. At the same time remember that arresting children is not illegal or abusive under international law. It all depends on circumstances and treatment. And what do we know about them? Based on that picture alone, Nothing! And this is the forth reason why the credibility of this picture is problematic. An old Jewish proverb says half a truth is worse than a lie. This picture, on its own, is much less than half the story. It does not tell us what happened before, and what happened after. Was the child throwing stones? Was he actually arrested or released shortly after? And if he was arrested, were his rights kept by the Israeli authorities, or not? You may agree politically with the act of Palestinian children throwing stones. That is your right, whoever you might be. But that does not change the fact that it is illegal, criminal, and violent. Your political convictions, just like mine, are not above the law. And what kind of politics sends children to do its bidding? …Violently?! 

In response to all the partiality of this picture I combined it with other picture to create a different context. I created two of them, one complex, one challenging. They may be biased, but all the pictures in them are real, and they come from Palestinian and international sources. 

 
.

Every aspect of Palestinian stones throwing has always been a spectacle.

 It had never been a resistance.

All these pictures together, 3 fakes, and 1 selective, combine into a false accusation against Israel and the IDF. It is a falsehood that wishes to erase Israelis, the way Palestinian terrorists have been doing. And it regards Palestinian civilians as nothing more than pawns. The way Palestinian terror organizations have been doing. The question is how much different James Joseph Zogby is from these terrorists, and forgers? He could have just fallen into the trap of confirmation bias. It is a trap we are all likely to fall into, and many of us did fall into. With the high and mighty, one sided moral judgment; he passed on Israel, it is difficult to disassociate him from the desire to erase Israelis; and from the willingness to reduce Palestinians to mere pawns, in the process. May be there are redeeming  factors. On the other hand, this is and has always been the essence of Palestinian and Anti Zionist politics. And he has always been a part of that system. But even if there are genuine, objective, redeeming facts, from his life and personal history, this cloud is gonna stick even if he deletes that tweet.

Fabrications, and half-truths in Climate Change denialists' bear party

Global warming deniers had a bear party, a polar bears party. Early this century concerns were raised that the observed decrease in the surface of arctic sea ice in the summer, will lead to their extinction due to loss of habitat. Apparently that did not happen. And now there is a debate as to the exact numbers of polar bears population today, especially in North America. The mainstream scientific community is convinced some impact had taken place. While one Canadian zoologist by the name of Dr. Susan J Crokford introduced data that doubt it. Her data is backed by claims of the Inuit community in Canada, saying that the numbers had increased in a way that threatens the lives of the Inuit population.

For the community of global warming deniers this was enough to turn them both into heroes and a cause for celebration. Their logic, if polar bears are not facing extinction, global warming is not taking place. As one critic of this party pointed out: "If they can push over the polar bears domino, all other examples of climate change are dismissed by association." Ironically Dr. Susan Crokford and the Inuit council are not exactly global warming deniers. While Dr. Corkford had some past association with global warming minimalists, in an interview she gave Glenn Beck, she acknowledged that the surface of the arctic sea ice is decreasing (minute 1:58). And the Inuit council agrees that climate change is taking place, it's just that the Polar bears are not affected by it, not yet. Here is their statement quoted in several news outlets: "Although there is growing scientific evidence linking the impacts of climate change to reduced body condition of bears and projections of population declines, no declines have currently been attributed to climate change," ….. "(Inuit knowledge) acknowledges that polar bears are exposed to the effects of climate change, but suggests that they are adaptable."

To the Inuit council, climate change is a fact, why wouldn't it be? After all they see the changes all around them, changes that their ancestors and their oral traditions do not recall. They also agree with the science that raised the original concerns. In their opinion it did not materialized not because climate change is wrong, but because the bears adapted. Naturally these facts are absent from the denialists bears party.

As the provided link show, the denialists also rely on other dubious arguments. One of them is the failure of worst case scenarios that warned of an ice free Arctic Ocean within a few years. If a concerned and inquisitive mind is honest and authentic than more questions should be asked. Are these the only scenarios? Are there best case scenarios? What is the likelihood of each scenario, or each type of scenario, best, medium, or worst? These questions are not asked by the denialists because propagandists and ideological fanatics do not need to ask questions. Once an argument is formed in-favor of the ideas and causes they promote, they do not need to ask any questions about it. Facts checking and self-criticism are redundant. Without these questions we all allow a deception to occur, as if there were only worst case scenarios to consider. It is important to emphasize here that this deception was helped by the global media giving attention only to the worst case scenarios.

Another denialist's argument is an outright lie, (even if they believe it to be true). "No other icon of 'Global Warming' epitomizes its very own false narrative like the polar bear does for 'Climate Change'." The idea that the size of the polar bears population is an argument that can debunk climate change is ludicrous not just because of the fact that Dr. Crokford and the Inuit council do not make that claim, (on the contrary, they acknowledge that sea ice is decreasing, see above); But for other reasons as well. First, bears are indeed adaptable. As these two videos show, you do not need to be an Inuit or to live near the North Pole in order to know that. Bears are curious creatures that like to explore new territories, and new things. And they are curious enough to test them and benefit from them if they work. It also helps when you are big and strong. Second, we also have to take into account the impact of past preservation efforts. Forth, there is no doubt that there are other factors to look at, factors that experts and local people know better than a Mediterranean person like myself.

The actual size of the polar bears population is therefore no argument against climate change, unless you find a way to exclude all the other factors, and their combined effect. Just think of this lopsided logic. The sun keeps us warm, therefore if we are warm than the sun is shining. If we are cold it isn't shining. Therefore, if its night time and we are warm, the sun is shining. And if it is day time, and we are cold, the sun is not shinning. Giving critical dominance to one factor, without examining other factors, is therefore not the responsible way to handle the data. Unfortunately, the worst case scenarios suffer from a similar problem. But at least they do not manipulate the data.

The biggest lie in the quote is the impression it create, as if other "icons" of climate change had also been debunked. They haven't. To start with these "icons", indicators, are too numerous to debunk. They come from the fields of biology, ecology, climate sciences, oceanography, and demography, and various inter disciplinary fields of research. There are not enough scientifically trained denialists to debunk all of them.

The icons they have targeted have missed the mark by a mile or more. For example, the Great Barrier Reef in Eastern Australia has been a point of concern for a long time. Here, denialists have on their side Dr. Peter Reed, a marine physicist from James Cook University in Northern Queensland. His "debunking" of those concerns is based on faults he found in 9 old studies he reviewed and dozens of others that he ignored. This gross selectivity a major short coming and I am been diplomatic here.

When it comes to the most immediate concern, the rise of sea level, denialists rely on another gross selectivity. They pick trends of decrees in the sea level that do not change the total trend, and use that as an argument against the existence of the total trend. This manipulation of data had been dubbed cherry picking by main stream science. And as this video shows, it has a simple explanation.

This video also shows that there is more than one type of scenarios as to the progress of climate change.

This cherry picking practice is used in the related debate regarding the amount of Arctic sea ice, and it is easily debunked, as I show in the image I have provided below, a child can do that.

While the population of polar bears may or may not have been affected by the decrease in Arctic sea ice, one species had defiantly been affected, human beings, us. As the ice decreases new economic opportunities opened up, in the form of new trade routes, and access to undersea row materials. These opportunities are so hot that leading powers on this planet are now engaged in a new competition, often described as 'the New Cold War'. Armed forces alongside science research crews and representatives of commercial interests, private and governmental, are racing across the new ice-free portions of the Arctic Ocean. The title of this new race may suffer from sensationalism; if so it is only drawback it has as 'icon' of global warming. It will be interesting to see how denialists "debunk" this icon/indicator.