And A Letter That Did Get Published

 In the Jerusalem Post Magazine:

BEEFED-UP BACKGROUND

I would not object to calling too many of Yair Netanyahu’s tweets brusque, blunt, brash, even boorish and bullying. Nevertheless, Gil Hoffman’s profile of the prime minister’s son is missing something (“Yair Netanyahu: The rise of the son,” October 23). And that something is a bit of context.

He does manage to quote one of his multiple anonymous sources – in fact none of his sources are named – noting that there are “attacks” on his family. Those attacks have been death threats, promises of physical harm, crude and menacing sexualized revilements, sneering insults and foul-mouthed abuse both virtually on social media as well physically outside his house.

While that missing element does not mitigate unnecessary behavior on the son’s part, it would have provided a fuller background to the profile.

YISRAEL MEDAD

Shiloh

And here it is:

^

Dosh - and Lechi

The Jerusalem Post Weekend Magazine, in its August 17 edition, devoted attention to Kardiel Gardosh, the famous "Dosh", one of Israel's premier political caricaturists.

He created for "Maariv" the Srulik image of young Israel.

As you can, a brief biography appears off to the side in a 'box' authored by Talia Levin.

What isn't there is his membership in the Lechi, the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (FFI).

He joined sometime in 1946 in France to where he emigrated from Hungary with his then wife. He and she sought out the underground contacts, trained in small arms use and contributed his cartoons and illustrations to the Lechi press in Mandate Palestine. His non de plume was Shir

He worked with Betty Knout, who was also in the French anti-German Resistance. 

Immigrating in early 1948, he first joined the staff of the Lechi's legal newspaper, "HaMivrak", (that had begun as a joint venture with Tnuat HaAm of Binyamin Lubotzky and Yigal Horowitz). He then drew for Herut:

Yes, there really was a right-wing in Zionism with cartoonists, journalists, novelists, poets, playwrights and other cultural spheres of activities.

^

A New Jerusalem Post "Green Lined" Post

Number 10. Here.

Letters-to-the-Editor of the Jerusalem Post

Wisdom:

Wrong on all counts...

Sir, - James Adler has it all wrong ("Why the 1967 borders work," Letters, February 8). His selective history and facile argumentation echoes those who want to dismantle Israel piece by piece. Adler, like many on the Left, artificially picks 1967as the beginning of Israel's serious problems.

The pre-1967 "borders" were not internationally recognized ones. They were the cease-fire lines at the end of the 1948-49 War of Independence. That there was a previous war disproves your correspondent's main argument.

Other inaccuracies: He implies Israel's borders were more secure pre-1967 than post-1967, citing the contrasting results of the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War as if added territory was responsible. But the critical difference was preparedness and decisiveness among Israel's leaders and generals in 1967. The "extra" territory, post-1967, saved Israel on the Golan Heights in 1973, when unpreparedness and indecision allowed Syrian forces to advance into Israeli territory.

Contrary to Adler's claim, demographics have always been part of the equation, even pre-1948.

Finally, every major war fought since WWII has proved that wars are ultimately won on the ground by controlling territory, not by lobbing rockets. Wars fought only from the air ended inconclusively. The Second Lebanon War is a blatant example.

NURIT HARPAZ
Jerusalem

--------------

Sir, - I'm sorry to disagree with the argument that if we went back to the 1967 borders there would be "peace on earth," but I'd like to remind your reader that the PLO was founded in 1964, when the Palestinians had the whole of the West Bank and Gaza and, thanks to their ethnic cleansing after the War of Independence, there wasn't one Jew on "their" territory.

The "liberation" in the name Palestine Liberation Organization refers to the bit that was Israel, and they tried their best to achieve that in 1967, and failed. But they have never given up their aspirations; and even though they talk of accepting our existence if we return to the "1948 borders," they haven't given me any reason to believe them.

Every time we've given them something, they've seen it as another step toward their goal, and gone on to their next demand. It seems they will never be satisfied until they've driven the Jews into the sea. Until they realize that won't happen, despite the encouragement they're getting from the West, there will never be peace here.

The only thing we can hope for is a cold peace while they decide they're better off improving their own country than trying to "liberate" ours.

CECILIA HENRY
Kfar Bialik

-----------------

...and somewhat naive

Sir, - The suicide borders of pre-June '67 Israel were in no way safe or free from terrorist attacks. And the only reason we were attacked from the post-June '67 borders was that Golda Meir and her advisers foolishly relied on foreign assurances instead of paying attention to the facts at their disposal.

Mr. Adler's naive advice to us would never match his attitude if Brookline was firing missiles at Cambridge.

CHAIM A. ABRAMOWITZ
Jerusalem

What A Traitor That Kavon Is

Why the Jerusalem Post published this article, The Pollard Affair: Was it dual loyalty?, I do not know.

Not because they can't publish articles like this, but why allow calumny to be aired?

Eli Kavon (his website) is on the faculty of Nova Southeastern University's LifelongLearning Institute in Davie, Florida and has been an adjunct lecturer at Broward Community College (?).

He admits that

there is not always justice for all Americans. I am thinking specifically of Jonathan Pollard. I was disappointed that outgoing president George W. Bush did not pardon Pollard

but from that fairly auspicious beginning, adds

for his treasonous acts of more than two decades ago...Jonathan Pollard betrayed his country...MOST AMERICAN Jews, as loyal supporters as they are of Israel, would never have betrayed this great country like Pollard did. But the Pollard Affair raises many questions about the specter of dual loyalty among American Jews. It is obvious that Pollard did not truly believe he was betraying his country.

And goes on, quoting George Washington and then adding

If Jews are to be citizens with full equality under the law they must "demean [conduct] themselves as good citizens." Did not Jonathan Pollard realize this when he was committing acts of treason against America?

and keeps hammering away:

let us always remember, Jonathan Pollard's treachery may be an exception to the rule when it comes to American Jewry, but the psychology of this traitor - a psychology that denies the possibility of dual loyalty for American Jews who love and support Israel - is a mind-set that lurks behind us all, and will not go away as soon as we might like. The specter of dual loyalty remains. Our divided identity is, today, a reality.

Kavon, as an academic, is an idiot.

Treason and betrayal are not only polemical terms but legal ones. The issue of dual loyalty is a non-starter because: (a) Pollard was helping out a country that should have received the intelligence information in the first place but his superiors were infracting the law by not allowing Israel the information they had and (b) Israel was an ally, not an enemy and certainly not an enemy in wartime.

Jay Pollard was not charged with treason and indeed, did not betray the Unitesd States of America.

But Kavon has betrayed not only Pollard but all his fellow Jews by bringing that term into play in his op-ed. He could have used more correct terms but he didn't because he wanted a brouhaha.

The fool.

And why did the JPost print this piece that way and not demand he alter his terminology?

Jerusalem Post Accepts "Jews for Jesus" Ad

My Letter in Today's Jerusalem Post

Blind, or just respectful?

Sir, - David Kimche made a sweeping generalization in "Breaking the law" (October 3). He wrote: "When Menachem Begin was prime minister, it was well known among those working closely with him that one of his weaknesses was his blind idolization of anyone in uniform."

Blind? Kimche should reconsider. Equally well known is that Begin tweaked Ezer Weizman, sardonically putting him down as "my mischievous general."

Indeed, Begin exhibited more outward respect for the army, its ensign and its generals than other politicians; but then again, he also wore a tie regularly, probably more in one week than David Ben-Gurion wore in his lifetime.

"Blind" is too extreme an adjective. And Kimche would surely tremble at being thought extreme.

YISRAEL MEDAD
Shiloh

As originally written:

David Kimche makes quite a sweeping generalization ("Breaking the law", Oct. 2) when he writes, "when Menachem Begin was prime minister, it was well known among those working closely with him that one of his weaknesses was his blind idolization of anyone in uniform". Blind?

Kimche would do well to reconsider that assertion. As is equally well-known, Begin tweaked Ezer Weizmann, calling him sardonically "my mischievous general" as a put-down. Indeed, Begin exhibited more outward respect for the army, its ensign and its generals than other politicians, but then again, he also wore a tie regularly, more in one week than David Ben-Gurion in perhaps a lifetime. Nevertheless, to use the adjective "blind" would be being too extreme. And Kimche would trepidate (*) at being extreme.

(*)

The Latin verb trepidare meant 'hurry, bustle, be agitated or alarmed'. Via French, it led to the English verb trepidate (tremble with fear or agitation)

Jerusalem Post Pays a Ransom, It Seems

Alerted by Muqata, and informed by Joe Settler, I now know that something very odd happened at the Jerusalem Post.

Let's make it simple:

1. Seth Freedman publishes a takedown of Israel.

Example:

Describing the situation in the West Bank as a form of apartheid causes offence to some, despite all the clear evidence justifying the term. The same people object to the wanton destruction meted out in villages by the IDF being likened to pogroms – the word having been somehow arrogated by certain Jewish people for their exclusive use, and only then in relation to the Jews' own historical suffering.

Any comparison between the expansionist, racially-motivated policies of the Israeli government and similar experiments of ethnic supremacy throughout history are deluged beneath a swamp of derisory, indignant responses, as though pointing out the glaringly obvious is the antithesis of honest and reasonable debate. The self-righteous anger is no less vehement, nor any less keenly expressed, on the other side among those who balk at the Jewish state being referred to as Israel, or the Israeli army as the IDF.

2. Edwin Bennatan published a takedown of Seth.

By his defense of these egregious descriptors, Freedman has set himself up as an apologist for the excesses of the Al-Aqsa station. In particular, his attempt to explain away the sensitivity of Israelis towards the careless use of the term 'pogrom' is inexcusable, considering that as a Jew and an Israeli he cannot claim ignorance.

Freedman concludes with one of his more remarkable statements. "While I understand how emotionally invested people (myself included) become when focusing on the conflict," he says, "we should not allow a situation where plainly-spoken facts are dismissed simply because the reader or viewer feels uncomfortable with the truth." In other words, those who reject the use of descriptors such as apartheid, Israel Occupying Forces, and pogroms, are clearly doing so because they are "uncomfortable with the truth". The possibility doesn't even enter Freedman's mind that they are rejecting these terms because they are uncomfortable with falsehoods.

While Freedman's most extreme allegations have been omitted here, he himself is a living rebuttal to his own claims. In Israel, he can call a spade a spade whenever he wishes; in fact he can even call it a pogrom. This is one of the benefits of living in a free society, - a privilege certainly not afforded by Hamas
to the Gaza viewers of Al-Aqsa TV.

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

4. David Horovitz then publishes this apology:

Thursday Sep 11, 2008
Point / Counterpoint: Apology to Seth Freedman

Posted 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.

If Freedman sends his money to Hamas, how would you describe Horovitz?

Bogged-down Blogs

Is the Jerusalem Post's blog section on Israeli politics a bit unbalanced?

Bibi's Blog
By Binyamin Netanyahu (last posted in February) Right
Building Bridges
By Yariv Oppenheimer Far Left
A-vital Blog
By Colette Avital Left
Mr. Chairman
By Tzahi Hanegbi (last posted in April) Center-Left
The Weekly Portion
By Dr. MK Ephraim Sneh Left

========================

UPDATE

Received a reply:

Avigdor Lieberman and Benny Elon used to blog for us and have stopped. We're approaching other voices.

Jerusalem Post's Second Thoughts?

“An article in today’s Jerusalem Post about the President’s position on Iran that quotes unnamed sources — quoting unnamed sources — is not worth the paper it’s written on,” the White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, said in a statement.

The Post later removed its article from its Web site and replaced it with one featuring the White House denial. By then, the report had already stirred considerable discussion online.

The full statement:-

An article in today's Jerusalem Post about the President's position on Iran that quotes unnamed sources -- quoting unnamed sources -- is not worth the paper it's written on.

Let me respond by reaffirming the policy of the Administration: We, along with our international allies who want peace in the Middle East, remain opposed to Iran's ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon. To that end, we are working to bring tough diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranians to get them to change their behavior and to halt their uranium enrichment program.

As the President has said, no president of the United States should ever take options off the table, but our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard.

More here:-

Q I want to ask you about the denial of the Jerusalem Post story --

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q -- when you say that the White House's preference is to solve this through peaceful, diplomatic means. That still leaves the door open, though, to planning an attack. I'm not saying you are planning an attack, but by your specifically saying that your preference is to have a peaceful, diplomatic means, doesn't that leave the door open to still --

MS. PERINO: I don't see how that changes -- I don't think that what I said today in response to a Jerusalem Post article that quotes an Army Times* piece that quotes unnamed officials who were quoting unnamed officials -- seems a little bit less than ethical to run that as a big story on their website. So what I said in there was I was restating longstanding Bush administration policy, which is to work with our international allies on a multilateral way to get the Iranians through diplomatic means, bringing economic and diplomatic pressure to bear on the Iranians to get them to change their behavior so that we could sit down at the table with them. And until they halt that nuclear enrichment we're not going to sit down with them.

But what I said in terms of, as the President said before, no President should take options off the table when dealing with any situation. So -- but I don't think I said anything different from what I've said before.

Q But on the -- go ahead.

Q Dana, it doesn't -- you don't deny the premise of the Post article, the Jerusalem Post article, which was that a senior U.S. official said that the President and Vice President were of the opinion that military action is called for in Iran?

MS. PERINO: I have no knowledge of anybody saying that to anybody in Israel, no. And as I said, I will restate that the United States position is to work with our international allies to bring diplomatic pressure to bear, both economic pressure and the diplomatic pressure that comes from working with all of our allies and also the countries in the region who have grave concerns about Iran's ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon.

And we're going to work with them, and in fact, we're working on a new set of incentives package -- a new incentives package right now that Secretary Rice is helping lead, that would continue to bring that pressure on them, and to show the Iranian people that there is a way that they could be a part of the international community; they wouldn't have to be as isolated as their government has made them. And we want to try to solve this diplomatically.

Q One quick follow on that. A broader question in the story, it also claims that there are sort of two camps in the administration: the President and the Vice President who are leaning more towards an attack, and Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates are sort of pulling them back. Is there any sort of split in the administration?

MS. PERINO: This is something that I have seen reported over the years, and I think it's just people surmising or trying to string along story lines and rumors that aren't based in fact. The President's team is well knitted up.

Mike.

Q Can I ask on this one?

MS. PERINO: On this one still?

Q What about the substance of it, though? Do the President and the Vice President feel that an attack is called for -- whether someone said that in Israel, or not?

MS. PERINO: Keith, I feel that I just answered that question when I talked about what our policy is.

Q Can you answer yes or no to that?

MS. PERINO: I just told -- said what our policy is and that our preference is to solve this diplomatically. And that's what we're trying to do.

Q But that doesn't answer the question.

MS. PERINO: It does answer the question, that that is what we are working with our allies to do. But the President has said -- what I'm saying today in response to the Jerusalem Post is nothing different than from what has been said at this podium for a couple of years now.

Q But it's not quite an answer, because everyone's preference is always for peace, but someone could still think that an attack may be called for.

MS. PERINO: Look, I think that when you have a longstanding policy, such as the President has, and he's working with international allies -- we've already passed three Security Council resolutions; we're now working on an incentives package; we have multilateral agreement that Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, or get the technology to be able to obtain a nuclear weapon, and we're all working towards that goal. But at the same time, the President has said that no President, no matter who it is, either him or anyone in the future, should take options off the table. It's not a smart way to negotiate.

Q Does the President -- do the President and the Vice President think an attack is called for on Iran? Yes or no?

MS. PERINO: I just said what the United States policy was, which is, our preference is to try to solve this diplomatically.

Q Look, skepticism seems warranted here, because in the run-up to the war in 2003, the line was officially that negotiations were still called for and that there was no decision to attack, when, in fact, subsequent reporting has shown that there probably was a decision to attack well before the attack took place. So why shouldn't we be skeptical of the claim that there's no intention to bomb Iran?

MS. PERINO: Bill, you can be as skeptical as you want to be. I stated what our policy is, and I don't have anything else that I can give you. I'm not going to be able to -- if you're going to be a skeptic, that's your right -- you're fourth estate, go for it.

A Letter of Mine in the Jerusalem Post

Kimche's errors

Sir, - David Kimche's apologetics for hosting Jimmy Carter are rife with error ("Why we hosted Carter," April 24). He admits that he and colleagues of the Israel Council for Foreign Relations were engaged in "much soul-searching" over whether to invite Carter to address that forum. Claiming that the council is "an independent apolitical body," however, Kimche makes his first error. As anyone who has access to the Web can read, it is actually a "non-governmental body headquartered in Jerusalem under the auspices of the World Jewish Congress."

Kimche makes his second error when he justifies Carter's criticism of what Kimche terms "Israel's behavior in the occupied territories" by referring to the behavior of "the settlers in Hebron." Setting aside the gross generalization in the use of "the settlers," by accepting the term "occupation" Kimche is making a very political statement. A more apolitical text should have been employed such as "administered." Another error of Kimche is his claim that Carter "tried to be more even-handed." But when the former US president stated that "despair causes both sides to resort to violence," was that truly even-handed or, more appropriately, was it another example of Carter's moral inequivalency as applied to Israel?

Another error of Kimche is his assertion that "the large audience that heard his speech... were impressed by his sincerity and appreciative of his efforts." I was present and I would insist that the audience was a "home court side." There were diplomats, many Arabs from the disputed territories, Israeli peaceniks, representatives of the Christian Peace Team and many journalists. It was a stacked deck.

Although I raised my hand, time ran out for my question but it was phrased thus: Mr. Carter, you have met with Hamas, persons you call terrorists but you ignore the Jewish communities in the areas of Samaria and Judea. You were sent several invitations over the years to come see how we have developed since the time you demanded the destruction of a renewed Jewish village that in fact has recently celebrated its 30th anniversary. In not coming, do you think us as worse than the Hamas?

Having heard Carter, thanks to and despite Kimche, I now realize that it probably would not have been worthwhile to have invited him.

YISRAEL MEDAD
Shiloh

A Jerusalem Post Oopsie

An acquaintance wrote to someone at the JPost today:

The headline on the website today: ""Sarkozy urges Israel to halt West Bank 'colonization'" betrays ignorance of the French language, and misreads into Sarkozy's remarks that were unlikely to have been there.

French does not have two separate words for colonization and settlement, and uses "colonization" for both. This is harmful and misleading.

It's on the lines of Vilnai's unfortunate holocaust comment.

The answer came:

thanks. I also noticed and will now try to get the webbies to change it -- too late for the paper of course. Perhaps that's the way it came from AP

Hitting?

The JPost headline blooper of today:

IDF reports hitting terrorist in hunt for Hamas cell in Nablus

Hitting?

Maybe "hitting terrorists"?

Temple Mount Logic

For a Jewish state to neglect its national and international responsibility to protect this place is beyond embarrassing; it reflects a profound absence of self-respect and a failure to fathom a basic requirement for our existence in this land.

More here.

'Militant' media - My op-ed in today's JPost

'Militant' media

A New York Times July 6 report by Isabel Kershner had me mixed up. The headline read "Israeli Offensive in Central Gaza Kills 11 Militants" and the lead sentence began: "At least 11 Palestinian militants were killed in airstrikes and armed clashes during an Israeli Army incursion." It continued with these details: "Hamas officials said that seven of the dead were members of its military wing, known as the Qassam Brigades…The Islamic Jihad faction said one of its men was among the dead."

And to "balance" the information thus far provided, we next read that "Israeli military officials described the raid as a routine operation to root out 'terrorist infrastructures.'"

Why am I bewildered?

In the first instance, "militant" is used in the headline which is the main attention-grabbing element. It is also used in the lead sentence, the most important one, as any journalism student can tell you. But then the story acknowledges that 7 of the "militants" were members of Hamas's "military wing" and another was an Islamic Jihadist - individuals who generally specialize in anti-civilian warfare such as launching rockets into cities and blowing up buses.

However, when it comes to Israel's version, the term "terrorist" is in quotation marks, which means in the media lingo - don't believe them, that's only what they claim.

OF COURSE, the Times is not the only media outlet that fobs off ideological mindset as newspaper "style," or as an unwillingness to "become part of the conflict" - a silly attempt to mimic objectivity.

Haaretz's headline of the same day's events read "IDF troops quit Gaza, ending raid that left 11 militants dead."

The Jerusalem Post provided a reasonable alternative when it set to type: "IDF troops kill 11 gunmen in Gaza Strip."

On July 1, the Times invidiously paraphrased the IDF spokeswoman when it published: "The spokeswoman said the militants had executed suicide attacks against Israelis."

I don't think she used the Hebrew for militants, and anyway, since when are "militants" suicide-bombers?

On July 4, the same newspaper (of record) published this gem: "Muhammad Farahati, 22, a militant affiliated with both the pro-Fatah Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades militia and the group Islamic Jihad…".

Now, if he was affiliated with a militia, why not refer to the young man as a "militiaman"? After all, if you're not going to be choosy, America was liberated by militiamen fighting against the British.

PICTURE CAPTIONS also provide an opportunity for radical multicultural, post-modernist, behind-the-scenes editors to manipulate public opinion.

At the end of May this year, a photo gallery was posted on the NYTimes's Web site. Here's one caption as it appeared: "A man inspects the damage at the American International School in Gaza after Palestinian militants set off explosives there in April."

A May 30 AP bulletin explained that "Israel resolved Wednesday to keep striking Gaza Strip rocket squads…The supreme leader of the Hamas militant group, which has been behind the latest surge in rocket attacks, vowed…".

That leaves me befuddled. If Israel is striking militant rocket squads who are firing off Kassams at civilian population centers, what is Israel, then? More militant? Radically militant? Or just plain evil?

The State Department presents another language twist. Reacting to the activity in Lebanon's Nahar El-Barad, its spokesperson published this notice:

"Lebanon's Security Forces rightfully" are taking action against a violent extremist group, adding that the group, Fatah al-Islam, is "dedicated to the use of violence."

So, Arabs who use guns can be referred to as "extremists" and moreover, it is right, just and proper to use force against such persons.

If so, why is Israel always being counseled by the State Department, British Foreign Office, the EU and myriad other "human rights" actors to limit its response to terrorist actions aimed almost exclusively at killing infants (Yehuda Shoham), teenagers (Avi Siton and Harel Bin-Nun) and women (Rachel Druck)?

And those fatalities are from my hometown of Shiloh alone.

THE BBC is quite open about its aversion to the use of the T-word. Its Producers' Guidelines dictate: "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution… We should not adopt other people's language as our own… We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber,' 'attacker,' 'gunman,' 'kidnapper,' 'insurgent,' and 'militant.' Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom." (see: here).

No matter how much we complain, the BBC, CNN, NYT and Reuters are stuck on "militants." They've taken a word that's synonymous with "combative" and employ it to describe those who specialize in killing unarmed civilians.

The right word is "terrorist."

In this way, the media is taking sides and corrupting not only language, but our minds. They are being zealously "militant" in perverting political and historical truth while inverting reality.

================================================

P.S. And here's how Haaretz reported an incident on their site today:

10:27 Militants hurl explosives at IDF troops in Nablus, no damage caused (Army Radio

How the Media Twists the News and Thwarts Democracy

Would you participate in an act of overthrowing Israel's government?

Overthrowing.

Netanyahu: Anglos should help overthrow government

Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu called upon English-speaking Israelis on Thursday to take action to overthrow Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government.

Speaking at the inaugural meeting of the Likud's new Anglo division at the party's Tel Aviv headquarters, Netanyahu said that immigrants from English-speaking countries brought new ideas, dynamism and dedication to Israel.

"There's a tradition of activism in the English-speaking countries that's deeply embedded in you," Netanyahu told a packed audience. "If you are activists, what you need to do now is to act to bring about new elections to replace this government."

Well, first of all, it misquoted him according to the story itself. Bibi said "replace" by "bringing about new elections". That's not overthrowing.

What is overthrowing, as any dictionary search will inform you is:

To bring about the downfall or destruction of, especially by force or concerted action: a plot to overthrow the government. or the termination of a ruler or institution (especially by force) or a change in government, often achieved by force or through a coup.

More than that, Bibi was asking people to get involved in a political process by joining a party, not an underground.

Does Gil Hoffman have something personal or ideological against Bibi? Does David Horowitz? Does the Jerusalem Post?

My New Op-ed at the Jerusalem Post

If you go now (and for how long, I haven't the foggiest) you can see my op-ed as the premier item in the Opinions section.

Here.

But I presume that will alter soon.

The article itself is here and here.

And the full, pre-edited version entitled The Modulations of a Meddling Media is now here.