Recent Articles

Categories

Archives

December 2012 Archives

December 27, 2012, 5:13 PM

Latma has a new show

A couple of months ago, Latma launched a new show hosted by Avish Ivri, our content editor. It's called Mishpat Ivri, which literally means, Hebrew Law, but I've dubbed his show in English "A Hebrew's Word." (Ivri, in Hebrew means "Hebrew.)
His show is geared towards the domestic audience and so until now I haven't really thought it was important to put out a version with English subtitles, but he's getting so good that I finally decided to let our foreign supporters in on our new operation. So here is Avishai's latest. The show generally runs about 2.5 minutes so it's great for those with short attention spans.


Now here's our regular flagship, the Tribal Update. On this week's show we celebrate the start of the 10th season of Channel 2's flagship leftist satire show "Eretz Nehederet" or Wonderful Land. 

We also bring you the alter ego of Nissim Mishal, the leftist Channel 2 TV host who entrapped Naftali Bennett into stating that he would be personally incapable of throwing Jews out of their homes.

And, of course, much much more.

Enjoy both shows and spread them far and wide.

As you make your year end donations, please consider contributing a bit of that excess change to Latma. Unlike the leftist satirists who enjoy unlimited budgets from commercial television shows, all of Latma's shows are paid for through private donations.

You can make your tax deductible donations to Latma through the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project. Please click on this link to donate.
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Martin Peretz - an appreciation

martin peretz.jpg

By the time I began developing a political consciousness in the early 1980s, I didn't have any choice but to be on the right side of the political spectrum. By the early 1980s, the political Left in the US had already abandoned support for Israel.

When I grew up in what would later become Barack Obama's neighborhood in Chicago, the black political machine in the neighborhood and the city, led by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan was openly anti-Semitic and pro-Muslim. The white Left was also hostile. The Communists were anti-Israel. The media was anti-Israel. 

As a proud Jewish girl, it was clear to me from adolescence on that I could only locate myself on the political Right. 

This was not the case for people who came of age in the 1950s and early 1960s. At that time, the USSR had not yet cut off its relations with Israel. The civil rights movement was a joint Jewish-black movement. 

For those of you who don't know the history, the NAACP was founded by Jews. The plaintiff in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, the landmark Supreme Court decision from 1954 that opened the path to school desegregation, was represented by the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund's legal team of Jack Greenberg and Thurgood Marshall. The famous Mississippi Burning incident where three civil rights workers were lynched in 1964 involved the murder of one black civil rights worker James Earl Chaney and two Jewish civil rights workers, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwermer.

But starting sometime around 1965, the blacks began the process of expelling the Jews from the Civil Rights movement, as they embraced anti-Semitism and the Arab war for the destruction of Israel. In New York City, this period reached a culmination in the 1968 teachers strike. The strike was caused by the decision of a black school board in Brownsville, Brooklyn to fire many of the Jewish teachers and administrators from the local schools and replace them with black separatist teachers and administrators. 

The head the teachers union Albert Shanker dated the end of Jewish-black cooperation to the strike.

While researching my book, yesterday I came across a fascinating FBI report from 1970 that was declassified under the Freedom of Information Act in 2009. Titled, "FBI Monograph: Fedayeen Impact - Middle East and United States, June 1970," it is focused on the PLO, and Fatah's penetration of the American political Left. 

Here's the link: 
http://www.governmentattic.org/2docs/FBI_Monograph_Fedayeen-Impact_1970.pdf

In the section on PLO operations in the US, The monograph discussed its outreach to the African American political leadership and the radical white establishment. These sections of the report are fascinating and I recommend you take an hour or so to read the entire document yourself. 

As the report puts it, "Since the June 1967, war, reports emanating from various sources have suggested that the Arabs have co-opted black extremists in the United States to assist the 'struggle' against Israel in the Middle East and in the United States."

The report makes specific mention of the co-optation of the Black Panther Party, (BPP), the Student National Coordinating Committee, (SNCC), Stokely Carmichael, and the Nation of Islam.

Several BPP leaders participated in anti-Israel conferences in Africa and the Middle East where they gave stridently anti-Semitic speeches calling for the destruction of Israel. In one speech in Algeria in 1969 BPP "Minister of Information" Eldridge Cleaver, "Proclaimed BPP support for the Arab position and criticized 'US-Zionists,' mentioning Arthur Goldberg, Henry A. Kissinger, and Judge Julius Hoffman. He also expressed BPP admiration for Yasir Arafat and al-Fatah. Cleaver and Arafat reportedly hugged and kissed each other and received a standing ovation from those at the conference."

In an interview with the New York Times on August 15, 1967, SNCC leader Ralph Featherston launched an all-out assault against Israel and Jews.

According to the FBI report, in the interview he said that "SNCC is drawn to the Arab cause because it is working toward a 'third world alliance of oppressed people all over the world - Africa, Asia, Latin America - and considers the Arabs have been oppressed continually by Israelis and by Europeans as well in such countries as Algeria.' He denied that SNCC was anti-Semitic, but was interested in indicting only 'Jewish oppressors,' a category he applied to Israel, and 'to those Jews in the little Jew shops in the ghettos.'"

Stokely Carmichael sang from the same song sheet and did so not in Algeria but on US college campuses such as George Washington University and Harvard beginning in 1970.

The Soviet Union openly sided with the Arabs in the Six Day War and cut off relations with Israel immediately following the war. The radical American Left, populated by the Communist Party USA and other Communist front groups and New Left groups abandoned Israel at the same time. This mass abandonment included the Progressive Labor Party; Students for a Democratic Society, (SDS); SDS-Weathermen; the Socialist Workers Party; Workers World Party; and the Communist Party - USA, (CPUSA).

Since President Obama's political world is populated by individuals from all these groups, and since Obama launched his political career in the living room of SDS-Weathermen terror commanders Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, it is worth noting that in the SDS-Weathermen magazine "SDS Fire" December 6, 1969 issue, contained an editorial stating that "Arab peoples, above all the Palestinian people, will not and cannot accept the existence of Israel, a colonial-type creature imposed by outside forces on the area."

A notable exception to the far Left's abandonment of Israel and embrace of anti-Semitism was Ramparts Magazine, the New Left publication founded by David Horowitz and Peter Collier. Among other pro-Israel Ramparts articles the FBI report cites, it notes in particular one by then Harvard Professor Martin Peretz from July 1967. 

In his article, Peretz took on the propaganda claims against Israel one by one and discredited them. Among other things, he said that Israel is not a colonialist state; there is no similarity whatsoever between the US war in Vietnam, which as a self-proclaimed radical he opposed, and Israel; the creation of Israel was not sponsored by imperialist powers; Nasser is not a socialist. 

Peretz excoriated the Third World and Communist countries for their failure to recognize the Arab threat to Israel's existence, calling their behavior "disgusting."

The FBI report notes that the CPUSA's support for the Arabs against Israel caused massive dissention in the ranks of the party, mentioning that some 75 percent of CPUSA's members were Jewish. Jewish Communists in Chicago collected blood and plasma for Israel and donated money. Dissenters were also heard loudly in New York.

The reason I entitled this post "Martin Peretz, an appreciation," is not for what he wrote in 1967, but because of what has happened to the Left, the Jewish Left and to Peretz in the 46 years that have passed since he wrote that article. 

In the late 1960s, Peretz wasn't alone in defending Israel against the radical Left - white and black. In 1967, even Jewish Communists were willing to break ranks to support Israel. And as the 1968 New York Teachers Strike showed, at the time, liberal Jews in general were willing to defend themselves from attacks by black anti-Semites. 

But in the intervening years, fewer and fewer voices on the Left, and specifically on the Jewish Left were willing to take such positions and pit themselves against their movement. And so as the decades passed, what were the positions of the radical Left in the 1960s became increasingly the positions of the mainstream Left, until by last summer, they became the positions of the majority of delegates at the Democratic National Convention.


When I was growing up in Chicago, the local Jewish establishment's refusal to support Israel in the 1982 Lebanon War is what made me decide to make aliyah. By the time I arrived at Columbia in 1987, and the Palestinian uprising broke out, it was hard to find Jewish leaders who were willing to stand up for Israel without stuttering. 

Today the situation has become simply untenable. Suffice it to say that Bill Ayres's political protégé Barack Obama's success in garnering 70 percent of the Jewish vote is not an aberration. 

Yet through it all, Martin Peretz has rarely wavered. Despite his attempts to support the Palestinians, he has not allowed his desire to see the Arab conflict with Israel resolved  diminish his support for Israel. He has remained a staunch, loyal defender of Israel. When I was growing up, I relied on his New Republic for its reporting on Israel and the Middle East. Peretz was one of my intellectual heroes. 

In recent years, I've felt more bemused by than respectful of Peretz. A colleague of mine quipped some years back that Peretz and Allan Dershowitz live in an intellectual universe populated only by Peretz and Dershowitz and they refuse to acknowledge that they are alone. That quip has probably anchored my thinking on both men ever since. 

But even if my colleague's remark was more true than false, reading the FBI report, I decided I should discard its snide diminution of Peretz. The fact is, he has been fighting this fight for nearly fifty years. As a man of the Left, he has fought the fight for Israel and Jewish rights, increasingly alone for nearly fifty years, and has done so despite what must have been enormous personal costs as his comrades all jumped ship, and in many cases, joined the cause of Israel's enemies.

don quixote.gif

Cervantes's Don Quixote is generally reviled as a fool for his futile battle against windmills. By the same token, Leftists who insist that their movement -- which long ago parted company with the ideals it claims to represent, and serves as a warm political home for totalitarian anti-Semites -- must  side with good against evil, necessarily call up the image of Don Quixote fighting the forces of nature.

But when you think about it, there is something heroic about keeping up a battle even if it is doomed to fail, simply because it is the right thing to do. So hats off to Peretz for keeping true.

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

December 24, 2012, 2:31 PM

Hagel, Obama and the Israeli elections



naftali.jpg
Today the National Journal reported that Obama is reconsidering his decision to appoint Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense. As I wrote in my previous post, there is no chance that Obama will appoint a supporter of a strong Israel to any senior foreign policy post because he wouldn't appoint someone who doesn't share his basic animosity towards Israel. But in Hagel, he chose someone even more outspoken in his animus towards the Jewish state than Obama. 

Hagel's looming appointment provoked angry responses from many leading Jewish voices in the US. Whether this opposition made a difference in driving Obama to reconsider his choice is unclear. Plenty of other influential groups - including senators, members of the military and lobbyists for homosexual rights - expressed their discomfort and opposition to the prospect of having Hagel serve as Defense Secretary. Still it is notable that Hagel's possible appointment sparked an outcry among prominent American Jews and that this outcry had some unknown impact on Obama's possible decision to cancel Hagel's appointment.

If Obama indeed scuttles Hagel's elevation to Defense Secretary, it shows that it is possible to fight Obama on foreign policy even in his second term, and win, at least sometimes. This is important information for Republicans, American Jews, and the Israeli government. 

Obama will have multiple, massive domestic challenges to contend with in his second term. If he wishes to focus on advancing his domestic agenda, he may well punt on foreign affairs. 
The US President's inbox is always overflowing. One of the hardest things for a president to do is take control over his own agenda. 

Just consider the issue of gun control. Certainly, as a liberal Democrat, Obama is for it. But Obama has never made the issue of restricting gun ownership  a priority during his presidency. Now in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, he is suddenly spending a lot of time on the issue and going into a head to head battle with the National Rifle Association. 
Maybe Obama will win this battle. Maybe he'll lose it. But he will be focusing on it a lot in the coming weeks. Again, this is not an issue that was ever central to his agenda. But due to an unforeseen event, it has become an issue that he is now forced to spend time on.

There are of course, many more foreseeable issues Obama will have to devote his presidential time, energy and capital to. The biggest among them is Obamacare. Budgetary and tax woes are not far behind. With only 24 hours in the day, Obama will not be able to focus on Israel or foreign policy on a daily basis. And in order to make time for other things, which are more important to him, or more immediately pressing, Obama may be willing to back down. 

As I was working on my book this morning, I came across an article I wrote before the 2006 elections in Israel. In it, I argued that the reason the Sharon government had such good relations with the US was because it bowed to every US demand, no matter how antithetical it was to Israel's national interests. At that time, I mentioned Sharon's decision to set aside his concerns and bow to US pressure to permit Hamas to participate in the Palestinian Authority's legislative elections in January 2006. 

For bending to Washington's will, Israel got plaudits from Rice and Bush. But we also got Hamas in charge, an even more radicalized Fatah racing to prove its own terror bona fides to measure up to Hamas, and increased international isolation for Israel as nation after nation began softening to the idea of Hamas being a legitimate organization.

In retrospect, it would certainly have been better for Israel - and for America - if Sharon had stood up to Rice and simply refused to permit Hamas to participate in the elections. It would have been better to have had a public fight with Washington and kept Hamas out of power than maintain warm relations with the Bush administration while empowering a terror group that openly seeks the annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people. 

This brings us to Obama, his apparent decision to stand down on Hagel,  US relations with Israel in Obama's second term in office, and finally to how the Israeli election campaign plays into all of these things.

HERE IN Israel, the Left's basic diplomatic attack on Netanyahu involves accusing him of having wrecked  Israel's relations with the US by standing up to Obama. But whereas by not standing up to Bush and Rice, Israel got Hamas in power and missiles on Jerusalem, by standing up to Obama, Israel is still in control of Judea and Samaria and the two-state delusion has been increasingly discredited in Israel, and to a lesser degree in the US. 

Moreover on Iran, Israel has coaxed a reluctant US administration into passing serious sanctions against Iran, and while the economic pressure hasn't made any dent in Iran's nuclear weapons program, Israeli pressure has made it harder for Obama to simply accept Iranian nuclear weapons. Vocally expressing Israeli concerns has certainly helped Republicans maintain pressure on Obama to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and publicly support a potential Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations.

It is understandable that Netanyahu is keeping mum on his diplomatic achievements. He can't risk even worse relations with Obama by mentioning his success in keeping the US President at bay in his quest to diminish Israel's strategic options. 

What makes less sense is his decision to adopt the Left's talking points against the Right in his assault on the Jewish Home Party and its leader Naftali Bennett. 

Last Thursday Bennett was conned by television personality Nissim Mishal into discussing what his  personal response as a soldier would be to the completely hypothetical issue of IDF expulsions of Jews in Judea and Samaria. The issue is artificial is because no one is proposing a mass expulsions of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria today. The Palestinians are uninterested in negotiating with Israel. Netanyahu is uninterested in surrendering land. And the Left, which would like to cut and run, has no chance of winning next month's elections. 

So Mishal manipulated Bennett into an irrelevant policy discussion in order to embarrass him.  Bennett said that he would personally object to fulfilling an order to expel Jews from their homes, and if necessary, bear the personal consequences.

Netanyahu himself is quite familiar with Nissim Mishal's manipulations of political theater to embarrass candidates on the Right. In 1999, during a televised candidates' debate when Netanyahu ran for reelection as Prime Minister, Mishal repeatedly interjected himself into the debate to support rival candidate Yitzhak Mordechai's character attacks on Netanyahu. 
Mordechai, who would be convicted of serial sexual harassment two years later, accused Netanyahu of lacking honesty, integrity and decency, saying "you know your best friends don't believe you." 

Mishal then chimed in, asking Netanyahu if he had any friends. 

Bennett and the Jewish Home party are potentially Likud's largest coalition partner. Rather than leave Bennett alone, Likud has opened an all-out war against him, castigating him as an extremist. 

I certainly understand the impulse to attack. Bennett is cannibalizing Likud voters. And recently, he opened an ill-advised, counterproductive attack on Likud and Netanyahu. But by attacking one another, Bennett and Netanyahu are discrediting their own positions.
 
Does Netanyahu really want to argue that it is extremist to oppose the forcible expulsion of Jews from land Netanyahu himself argues Israel needs to defend itself from external invasion? 

Does Bennett really want to argue that the prime ministerial candidate he favors, and in whose government he hopes to sit is too weak to be trusted to lead Israel?

Israel faces massive challenges in the coming years. The apparent scuttling of Hagel's appointment is a hopeful sign that if we keep our heads about us, we can prevent Obama from taking steps that are truly antithetical to Israel's survival. 

But we must understand, the reason Hagel's appointment was apparently abandoned is because the opposition to his appointment was strong, coherent, and unified. Israel needs a strong, coherent government to meet the challenges it will face in the next four years, including working with a hostile Obama administration. We won't get one if the leaders of the nationalist camp are using the Left to weaken and discredit one another.

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Merry Christmas from Latma

For all my Christian friends, and for everyone concerned about the future of Christianity in the Middle East and Eurabia, here are Latma's Christmas songs for your viewing pleasure and as food for thought to complement your egg nogs.

Christmas in Eurabia from last year.



Jihad Bells from 2010.


As you can see, these songs become even more relevant with each passing day. When you make your giving decisions for the end of the year, please support our efforts at Latma. You can make your tax deductible donations to Latma through the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project. Please click on this link to donate.
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

The anxieties of an Israeli "war criminal" and the woes of lottery champs

This week on the Tribal Update, the weekly satirical newscast produced by Latma, the Hebrew-language media satire site I run, we bring you an intimate look at the anxieties of Israeli reservists caught in the cross-hairs of peaceful Palestinian protesters.
We also bring you the woes of national lottery winners and much much more.

Enjoy the show!


Latma is is supported by donations to the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project which I direct. If you would like to contribute to our work, which is funded entirely by viewer contributions, please go to this link.
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

December 19, 2012, 3:23 AM

Hats off to our intrepid warriors in Dublin

Works out that led by Ambassador Boaz Modai, the Israeli Embassy in Dublin has finally taken its "kick me" sign off its backside and decided to give the Irish anti-Semites a piece of our mind.

And for their efforts, of course, our intrepid representatives in the land of St. Patrick have raised the hackles not only of the Irish, but of their enablers at Haaretz and the New York Times.

As Jonathan Tobin at Commentary reported, not only did the embassy post a picture of Mary and Jesus and write that if these two Jews tried to walk around in Bethlehem today they'd be lynched, they posted a Latma video from two years ago where we attacked the anti-Israel propaganda that passes for Middle East coverage in the execrable Irish media.

Apparently intimidated by the criticism, and feigned indignation of the Israel haters who don't like to be reminded that they are Israel haters, the embassy removed the posts from their website and apologized for giving offense to these touchy bigots. 

Well we at Latma say we salute you! We haven't been so proud of Israeli diplomats since January 2004 when Zvi Mazel, then ambassador to Sweden literally turned the lights off at an anti-Semitic art exhibition in Stockholm where a Palestinian mass murderer was portrayed as a heroine.

If you have a few moments free, I urge you to email the embassy in Dublin and praise them for finally going on offense. Encourage them to keep it up. 

Also email the Israeli Foreign Ministry and tell the bosses how much you appreciate the courage of our diplomats and hope that their behavior reflects the guidance that they received from Jerusalem. Also be sure to mention that if this courage does not reflect that guidance, then the guidance should be updated to align with their brave and effective actions.

Oh, and when you're done with that, please contribute to Latma from the US by clicking on this link! 
If you're not in the US and want to support our work, please go to this link. The Zionist Incubator is the NGO I founded for non-American donors to be able to support Latma's work.

As this story proves, our work stands the test of time. Help us make more timeless satire that drives anti-Semites stark, raging mad!

Now here's the video.

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

December 16, 2012, 5:51 PM

Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary - Bring it On!

chuck hagel.jpg
Many in the American Jewish community are aghast to discover that President Obama is planning to appoint former Senator Chuck Hagel to serve as Defense Secretary. If you want the skinny on how Hagel has come to be known as one of the few ferociously anti-Israel senators in the past generation, Carl from Jerusalem at Israel Matzav provides it.

Meantime, all I can say is I don't understand how anyone can possibly be surprised. Shortly after word came out that Hagel is the frontrunner for the nomination, I read a quaint little blog post written by a conservative leaning commentator voicing her belief that Obama wouldn't want to risk his relations with Israel's supporters by appointing Hagel. But as Powerline pointed out today, this is the entire point of the nomination. Obama isn't stupid. He picks fights he thinks he can win. He hasn't always been right about those fights. He picked fights with Netanyahu thinking he could win, and he lost some of those. 

But he is right to think he can win the Hagel fight. The Republican Senators aren't going to get into a fight with Obama about his DOD appointee, especially given that it's one of their fellow senators, even though many of them hate him. The Democrats are certainly not going to oppose him. 

Obama wants to hurt Israel. He does not like Israel. He is appointing anti-Israel advisors and cabinet members not despite their anti-Israel positions, but because of them.

Some commentators said that Susan Rice would be bad because she was anti-Israel and they hoped that Obama would appoint someone pro-Israel. But John Kerry is no friend of Israel. And as far as I was concerned, we would have been better off with Rice on the job. 

Unlike Kerry, Rice is politically inept. She walked into Sen. John McCain's office with the intention of convincing Sens. McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte that she was competent to serve as Secretary of State despite the fact that she deliberately misled the public on what happened at the Sept. 11 jihadist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. 

But she failed. In commenting on the meeting, all three senators said they were more concerned after speaking with Rice than they were before they did. That is, they said she was a political incompetent. Can there be any doubt that Sen. Kerry will be able to play the politics of Capitol Hill far more effectively than Rice?

And what reason does anyone have to believe that Assad's great defender will be any more supportive of Israel than Rice would have been? But with him in the driver's seat now, instead of having a political incompetent whom no one can stand serving as the spokesman for Obama's anti-Israel foreign policy, in Kerry we will have a competent, reasonably popular politician on the job. 

It's time for people to realize the game has changed. Obama won. 

Obama won with 70 percent of the Jewish vote despite the fact that his record in his first term was more hostile to Israel than any president since Jimmy Carter. No one can expect him now, after his victory, to feel even slightly constrained in his desire to weaken the US relationship with Israel. 

So far, he has made clear that he feels no constraints whatsoever. Take the Palestinians at the UN for example. Obama enabled the Palestinians to get their non-member state status at the UN by failing to threaten to cut off US funding to the UN in retaliation for such a vote. 

Both Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush issued such threats during their tenures in office and so prevented the motion from coming to a vote. Given that the Palestinians have had an automatic majority in the General Assembly since at least 1975, the only reason their status was only upgraded in 2012 is because until then, either the PLO didn't feel like raising the issue or the US threatened to cut off its financial support to the UN if such a motion passed.  This year PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas said he wanted to have a vote and Obama responded by not issuing a threat to cut off UN funding. So the Palestinians got their vote and, as expected, it passed overwhelmingly. 

Seeing the upgrade as a Palestinian move is a mistake. It was a joint Palestinian-American move.

And Obama made that move and no one balked. Indeed some New York Jews applauded it. 

Let there be no doubt, Obama will get Hagel in at Defense. And Hagel will place Israel in his crosshairs. 

The only way to foil Obama's ill intentions towards Israel even slightly is to be better at politics than he is. And he's awfully good. 

Moreover, one of his strongest advantages is that Israel's supporters seem to have never gotten the memo. So here it is: Obama wants to fundamentally transform the US relationship with Israel. 

He isn't playing by the old rules. He doesn't care about the so-called Israel lobby or the Jewish vote. As he sees it, to paraphrase Jim Baker, "F#&k the Jews, they voted for us anyway."

As strange as it may sound, I am slightly relieved by Hagel's appointment, and by my trust that Kerry will be a loyal mouthpiece of Obama's hostility. The more "in our faces" they are with their hostility, the smaller our ability to deny their hostility or pretend that we can continue to operate as if nothing has changed. As we face four more years of Obama - and four years of Obama unplugged -- the most urgent order of business for Israelis is to stop deluding ourselves in thinking that under Obama the US can be trusted. 

So welcome aboard Secretary Hagel. Bring it on. 

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Up-to-date Hanukah celebrations and a glimpse of European shock

I was away this weekend so a bit late, here is this week's Tribal Update, the satirical newscast produced by Latma, the Hebrew-language, satirical media criticism website I run.

In this week's episode, we bring you a behind-the-scenes look at the productive genius behind Israeli Hanukah festivities.

We also provide a poignant, intimate look at European shock and angst at current events in the Middle East.

Enjoy the show!


Latma is is supported by donations to the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project which I direct. If you would like to contribute to our work, which is funded entirely by viewer contributions, please go to this link.

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

December 7, 2012, 8:15 AM

Blame Canada -- The Palestinian version

This week on the Tribal Update the weekly satirical newscast produced by Latma, the satirical Hebrew-language media criticism website I run, we tip our hats to the Great North, Canada for standing by Israel at the UN. (Don't worry Czechs, and Micronesians, we love you too...).

We bring you the Palestinian Minister of Uncontrollable Rage, Tawil Fadiha presenting the Palestinian version of South Park's immortal "Blame Canada!"

Many of you may have noticed that in media coverage of the Israeli election, the Left has disappeared. The Likud and the others on the Right are running against a new force, called, "the Center." We contend with this issue as well.

Finally, we present an episode of Crossfire where the British are forced to answer their Israeli critics.

Here is Blame Canada as a separate clip.


And here is the whole show.



Latma is is supported by donations to the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project which I direct. If you would like to contribute to our work, which is funded entirely by viewer contributions, please go to this link.

And may I add, Prime Minister Harper, Israel loves you!
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Syndication

Recommended Sites

© 2013 Caroline Glick