ساترفيلد جاسوس إسرائيلي

فبراير 23, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– لسنا بصدد مناقشة الموقف الأميركي المعروف بانحيازه للمصالح الإسرائيلية، والعاجز عن لعب دور الوسيط النزيه في كلّ قضية تكون «إسرائيل» طرفها الثاني، كما هو حال ملف لبنان وثروته من النفط والغاز، الذي أثارت «إسرائيل» حول الحقوق اللبنانية في مياهه الإقليمية عاصفة لم تهدأ، ولا حول التاريخ الشخصي لدايفيد ساترفيلد كسفير أميركي سابق لدى كيان الاحتلال وقد عمل سفيراً في بيروت، وفي المهمّتين كان يعبّر بحماسة عن التزامه المصالح الإسرائيلية، ويتقن تحويل المكانة الدبلوماسية الأميركية إلى منصة لخدمة المصالح الأميركية.

– القضية هي في سؤال أمني عسكري حمله ساترفيلد للمسؤولين اللبنانيين، يتصف بوضوح بالطابع التجسّسي لحساب «إسرائيل»، ولم يتورّع فحمله بتكليف إسرائيلي بكلّ وقاحة ودار به على المسؤولين اللبنانيين، والسؤال هو:

هل سيطلب مجلس الدفاع الأعلى من حزب الله مباشرة أو بصورة غير مباشرة إيقاف منصات النفط والغاز الإسرائيلية إذا تعرّض العمل في البلوك التاسع لمعوقات أمنية وعسكرية إسرائيلية؟ وإنْ لم يطلب وقام حزب الله بالردّ هل سيقوم لبنان بتغطية هذا الردّ؟

وهو سؤال يشكل الجواب عليه هاجس القيادة العسكرية والاستخبارية في كيان الاحتلال وتحاول جمع المعلومات حول الجواب عليه، فتطوّع الجاسوس ساترفيلد لحملة والعودة بالجواب.

– من الطبيعي أن ينفتح لبنان على وساطات مثل الوساطة الأميركية في ملف النزاع النفطي المفتعل من جانب «إسرائيل» رغم الإدراك بحجم الانحياز الأميركي لـ«إسرائيل»، لكن من الطبيعي أيضاً أن يحذّر لبنان أيّ مسؤول دولي يلعب دور الوساطة من تحويل مهمّته لعمل تجسّسي لخدمة الحسابات العسكرية والأمنية الإسرائيلية، وصولاً لرفض مواصلته القيام بمهام الوسيط. ولا ينفع هنا الحديث عن نظريات من نوع التحسّب الأميركي لمخاطر التصعيد، وهو تحسّب يصبح مشروعاً لو كان عنوانه الجهة التي يمكن أن تبدأ بالعمل الأمني والعسكري، وهي قطعاً ليس لبنان، وليس الجهة التي تجزم بعزمها على الردّ فقط وهذا هو حال لبنان، والتحقق من صيغة وطبيعة الردّ لا وظيفة له في السياسة، والوساطة، بل هو سعي لجلب الاطمئنان الإسرائيلي في حال الإقدام على الاعتداء بماهية السيناريو الذي سيعتمده لبنان. وهو سيناريو عسكري أمني يُعتبر من أسرار الدولة ويشكل كشفه جريمة، عنوانها نقل أسرار الدولة لجهة عدوة.

– آن الأوان ليعلم ساترفيلد أنّ الموقف الذي لم يتوقعه من لبنان هو ورئيس الدبلوماسية الأميركية ليس صدفة، ولا موقفاً عابراً، بل هو تعبير عن خيارات استراتيجية ثابتة للدولة اللبنانية في الدفاع عن حقوقها السيادية، وله مندرجات تخصّ لبنان وحده في حال وقع العدوان، لأنّ مهمة الوساطة تنتهي مع أول طلقة إسرائيلية تستهدف لبنان براً وبحراً وجواً، ومهمة الوسيط التحقق من صدقية المنطلقات القانونية والتقنية التي يقدّمها كلّ فريق حول خلفيات موقفه والسعي للمواءمة بينها وبين معطيات القانون الدولي، وإبلاغ مَن يخرق هذا القانون بأنه لن يلقى أيّ تفهم في حال العدوان، وأنّ العالم سيقف مع المعتدى عليه، وأنّ الإصرار على رفض الحلول المنسجمة مع قواعد القانون الدولي سيعرّض المرتكب للعقاب الدولي، وإعلان وقف الوساطة. أما إذا وقع العدوان فكلّ وسيط ملزم بالوقوف في صف المعتدى عليه، وليس التجسّس على كيفية ردّه لينقلها للمعتدي كي يكمل خططه وحساباته قبل القيام بالعدوان.

– ساترفيلد ليس جاسوساً إسرائيلياً وحسب، بل وقح أيضاً.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Roger Waters Discusses BDS, Attempts to Block His Current US Concert Tour

Posted on 

Roger Waters’ “Us and Them” tour is scheduled to perform this Friday and Saturday night at Nassau Coliseum, on Long Island, in Uniondale, New York. Apparently Nassau County officials have backed down on their plans to shut down the show (see article below). Waters was interviewed on “Democracy Now” with Amy Goodman and co-hosts.

Roger Waters Shows Will Go On Despite Nassau County Anti-BDS Law

Gothamist

The New York Civil Liberties Union is urging lawmakers in Nassau County to repeal a bill denying county contracts to any companies participating in the Boycott, Divest and Sanction [BDS] movement, which seeks to pressure Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

“Nassau County cannot be in the business of telling people what to say or think,” Susan Gottehrer, the NYCLU’s Nassau chapter director, wrote in a letter to County Executive Edward Mangano on Monday. “The BDS movement is a form of protected political speech.”

The letter comes in response to County Attorney Carnell Foskey’s threat to take “appropriate legal action” against the Nassau Events Center (NEC) if it does not cancel upcoming concerts by Roger Waters, a vocal BDS supporter and longtime critic of Israel’s settlement expansions. During a Facebook Live chat in July, Waters said that he expected the county’s attempts to fail.

“You would have to tear up the Constitution of the United States of America, particularly the First Amendment, and throw it into the Hudson River, or the East River if that’s closer, in order for that to happen,” he noted.

Just a week earlier, Nassau County Legislator Howard J. Kopel wrote in a Facebook post that “the Nassau County Attorney confirms that Roger Waters’ proposed upcoming tour dates at the Nassau Coliseum are indeed in violation of Local Law 3-2016.” That law was passed passed in 2016, one month before Governor Cuomo signed a similar order stipulating that any entity boycotting Israeli businesses would also be boycotted by the State of New York.

According to the NYCLU, the law itself is a violation of the constitution. “The law targets political boycotts, which the Supreme Court has long held as a form of political speech,” Zachary Ahmed, policy counsel at NYCLU, told Gothamist. “Here we had an example of the county threatening to enforce this law, and that’s what prompted us to respond.”

Asked to comment on the letter, the county attorney said that they would not be pursuing legal action against the events center, after all. “After extensive legal review, we had determined that factual issues and a lack of legal precedent had precluded success if the County were to litigate,” the county attorney said.

Neither the attorney nor County Executive Edward Mangano responded to questions about whether the decision applies just to Roger Waters, or enforcement of the bill as a whole. The executive also did not respond to a question, initially posed by the NYCLU, about whether the county had previously enforced or threatened to enforce the anti-BDS law.

“As long as law remains on books, there’s a possibility that the county could enforce it against other businesses,” Ahmed added. “We believe that would be unconstitutional.”

Waters will perform at Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum this Friday and Saturday nights.


To see “The Occupation of the American Mind,” narrated by Roger Waters,  click here.

“Folded Flags” by Roger Waters

UPDATE

Though unsuccessful at getting his venues shut down (at least so far), Jews nonetheless are holding protests at Waters’ concerts. According to a report in the pro-Zionist Washington Free Beacon, Stand With Us, along with another Jewish organization, identified as “Artists 4 Israel,” are planning to follow the tour from city to city. Their plans reportedly include setting up a 15-foot inflatable Pinocchio doll as well as deployment of a van with a billboard which reads, “”Roger Waters, Don’t Need Your Hate and Censorship Against Israel.” The article includes a quote from a Stand With Us official who smears Waters as an “antisemite” and a “bigot.”

 

Garland is confirmed, four out of five justices named by Democrats will be Jewish.

Garland nomination is moment of humble reflection for US Jews

Woodrow Wilson was a bastard when it came to black people but he put the first Jew on the Supreme Court, 100 years ago. It is said that Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous conversion to Zionism in 1912 came about because Wilson planned to nominate him but needed a representative Jew, and all the Eastern European Jews who had come to New York were Zionists.

Since then there have been seven other Jews on the Supreme Court per Wikipedia: Cardozo, Frankfurter, Goldberg Fortas and the three who are on there now, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Two others have been nominated to the Supreme Court, Douglas Ginsburg and Merrick Garland. Ginsburg withdrew after it came out that he had smoked weed; Merrick Garland is of course President Obama’s nominee of this week, who faces an uphill battle in an election year. At his unveiling, Garland referenced his ancestors who fled anti-semitic persecution in Europe.

What do these numbers tell us about the Jewish place in America? A hundred years ago it required a real expenditure of political capital (by a racist) to nominate a Jewish justice. Today it’s not just old hat, but Jews are the liberal establishment in Washington. If Garland is confirmed, four  out of five justices named by Democrats will be Jewish. That’s a lot. There have been only two black Supreme Court justices. And one Hispanic.

I knew Merrick Garland a little bit at the Harvard College newspaper in the 70s (guess what, he had judicial temperament, I didn’t; but he couldn’t write this article if his hair was on fire). I sought out the Jewish club of the newspaper in part because I believed anti-Semitism was regnant in America and at Harvard, and so did Alan Dershowitz: he threatened to leave the Harvard Law faculty in the early 70s unless it finally got a Jewish dean. Harvard did name a Jewish dean to the law school, and there have been several Jewish deans and presidents since. Now it’s ho-hum.

Again, the Garland nomination is a reminder that Jews are the blue state establishment. In fact, Garland is seen as the safe pick over various ethnic-er picks that Obama could have made– notably Sri Srinivasan.

And speaking of the establishment, it was said that Wilson was trying to shore up the allies’ claims on Jewish financiers in the First World War when he approved the Balfour Declaration, a year after he nominated Brandeis, and committed the U.S. to Zionism.

Oy what an error. From Brandeis to Garland, our presence in the most exclusive corridors of the power structure should tell Jews that our place in the west is safe; we don’t need so-called Jewish sovereignty in another country halfway around the world that is more than half non-Jewish anyway, though most of them don’t have any rights, can’t even vote, to be safe. No, we need to celebrate the freedom a democracy grants to minorities.

Power is a fluid thing in society, I reflected yesterday as I looked out of a window at the National Press Club at the slate roof of Treasury during the annual Israel influence conference. Scholar Kirk James Beattie had just finished up a discussion of his study showing that legislative staffers fear the Israel lobby but have never been visited by the “oil lobby.” American Jews have real social/political power in this moment in American life. It’s about time we broadly acknowledged this fact, with humility, and praise.

Israel Announces $26 Million Cyberattack on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement and Muslims in the West

American Everyman

(I guess they are getting serious about the internet of things)

from AlterNet

…However flawed his framing might have been, Estrin’s reporting makes one thing clear: The Israeli crackdown is poised to escalate its campaign to unprecedented levels. An unknown number of Israeli tech companies are threatening to unleash a wave of cyber-attacks, including “sly algorithms to restrict these online activists’ circle of influence” as well as “forensic intelligence gathering, such as detecting digital or semantic signatures buried in activists’ coding so they are able to track and restrict their online activity.”

Those acts of sabotage will take place alongside a flood of “content that puts a positive face on Israel.”

The non-profit Firewall Israel, sponsored by a government-linked think tank known as the Reut Institute, is “building an online platform to help pro-Israel activists around the world communicate about anti-Israel activism in their communities,” the article states.

[read more here]

View original post

The role of the BBC in the Syrian conflict

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/the-role-of-the-bbc-in-the-syrian-conflict/

“The following report contains disturbing images”

This is how the BBC website introduces a report by its BBC Panorama’s Syria correspondents Ian Pannell and Darren Conway on August the 30th, 2013. The story contained a video, ostensibly shot near Aleppo, Northern Syria, by an anonymous school headmaster, and documenting the aftermath of a napalm attack on his school, supposedly perpetrated by the Syrian armed forces on August 26th. According to the story, the “evil” forces of Bashar al-Assad, at a time when they had just about established their strategic advantage over the anti-government rebel forces and the foreign mercenaries they had been fighting for over two years, had found nothing better to do than attack a school, a target which presented no military interest whatsoever, with napalm – no less – just so the international media, and BBC Panorama in particular, could pick the story and broadcast it to Western audiences, in perfect timing to coincide with the British Parliament’s vote on the so-called “humanitarian intervention” in Syria, which was being pushed for by Prime Minister David Cameron, ostensibly to prevent precisely this kind of atrocities.

Were Assad’s forces really that stupid? Of course not.

It did not take long before several international commentators and observers pointed out the many implausibilities in the video and the story in general. Among them, Italian author Francesco Santoianni, showed how incongruent the whole story was, sparking the suspicion that the entire video might have been a fabrication. What follows is his analysis.

First of all, Napalm is a substance which generates temperatures between 800 and 1,200 degrees Celsius: in other words, no one has ever survived direct exposure. These physical characteristics mean that when Napalm was utilised in theatres of war, it was primarily used to defoliate areas covered with thick vegetation, and not urban areas, where white phosphorus is more often used, as the United States Armed Forces did in Falluja in 2005, and the Israeli Defence Forces did in Gaza in 2008. Nevertheless, the BBC expected its viewers to believe that Assad’s forces had employed the obsolete napalm on a school. Of course, a school with no teaching resources in sight, but somehow a swimming pool in the back. Oh, and a swing. Case closed: it MUST be a school. Although, we are told by our sources in Syria that the school year did not start until September 15: so what exactly were all those people doing in a locked-up school?

In the video, we were also shown a pair of winter shoes – not clear how they ended up there: it was after all August – and a woman’s shoe. Was all this footwear worn by the victims? How did it remain intact?

Almost every British newspaper which reported the story informed us that “The attack killed more than ten pupils and left many more seriously injured”: and yet, despite the warning against graphic images, we are not shown the bodies, or the grieving parents.

There is – to be sure – a child, seeing shaking in one scene. His skin is actually intact, and so is his hair: certainly not consistent with napalm, or anything like it. And what is the white stuff on his body? Surely, it cannot be the chemical fired from the fighter jets – that wouldn’t have left his hair intact – therefore we must assume that it’s some kind of first-aid ointment, of sorts? Whoever administered it could not even be bothered to remove the watch from the kid’s wrist. In fact, no one seems to be attending this child: the only person with some kind of interest is the cameraman.

Somewhat less convincing is a couple, seen in the video going through the well-rehearsed motions of cursing in Arabic. There is a problem though: the woman’s face is covered in that same white stuff: and the couple has just arrived to the so-called hospital, so it cannot be “some kind of first-aid ointment”. It must be the “napalm-like chemical”. We are expected to believe that a “napalm-like” chemical, fired from a fighter jet, somehow ended up sprayed on this woman’s face leaving her veil intact?

We also see what is supposed to be a makeshift hospital. On the floor, five adult males are shaking – three of them still have their clothes perfectly intact, of course – although one of them at some point stands up and walks off, having presumably decided that he’s had enough.

By the way, we keep seeing paramedics from the so-called charity Hand in Hand for Syria supposedly handling chemical burns victims without any gloves on – but wearing gas masks, for some reason. And even a dust mask: what’s that? The woman in question is of course Dr. Rola, the star of this video [segment introducing Dr. Rola]

Then, of course, we get the obligatory segment showing a distraught local, venting his powerless rage at the International Community, invariably denounced as inefficient and perennially locked in futile negotiations. The Public Relations rules dictate that such a character must be somehow connected with the tragedy (no details given), and that, when he addresses the camera, he must not speak in the local language – which would only sound like terrorist gibberish to most Western audiences: rather, he has to produce an impromptu speech in an impeccable English, so impeccable to the point of sounding scripted and well-rehearsed, or even read off a prompter. After all, these PR rules did work for Libya.

All these absurdities were exposed almost immediately after the release of the video on the BBC’s channels. So why talk about them again now?

Well, one reason is that the BBC itself, presumably after receiving dozens of complaints from viewers who didn’t appreciate their intelligence being insulted, decided to salvage what little they could from the story, and delete the biggest blooper of all. And this is where it gets creepy. Because what follows leads one to believe that this was not the case of the BBC naively buying into a story packaged and sold to them by the anti-Assad PR machine (it wouldn’t have been the first time), but rather that the BBC itself actively created a product that was intended to steer the public opinion towards a more interventionist position. For such a product, there can only be one definition: propaganda.

What happened was that Human Rights activist Craig Murray, among others, realised that, between the first and the second release of the video, something was different in the lines spoken by Dr. Rola. Listen to the original one, containing references to napalm.

The reference to napalm has disappeared in the redacted version.

Both audio clips have the same identical sound quality: of course, there is very little that cannot be accomplished with the kind of technology that’s available to the British Broadcasting Corporation, thanks in part to the fact that Dr. Rola was wearing her exaggerated dust mask, which conveniently did away with all the challenges involved in dubbing, lip-synch, etc. However, the redacted audio clip must have been added at a much later stage, for reasons we have just explored, which prompts us to ask: how can we even be sure that the original audio clip was not scripted and recorded in a studio? Also, Robert Stuart, writing on the Media Lenses Forum, points out that Dr Saleyha Ahsan, featured in the new version of the video, is a filmmaker with a military background: a former Captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps and a freelance current affairs journalist. Was she involved in packaging this product?

The background of Dr. Rola herself is also interesting. Of course, she’s no stranger to the BBC:here she can be seen appearing on a political programme, advocating for the bombing of Syria.

Also of interest is the fact that the Charity Hand in Hand for Syria, where Dr. Rola supposedly works as a volunteer medic, happens to sport a flag of the French colonial era on its logo – a flag now adopted by the Anti-Assad Coalition. This is an affiliation which the BBC did not see fit to disclose to its viewers.

For those who still believe in whatever is left of the BBC’s reputation for upholding the mediatic standards of fair and balanced reporting, here is some useful information about another so-called “charity”. The BBC Media Action (formerly the BBC World Service Trust), with its catchy slogan: “Transforming Lives through Media around the World”.

In an interesting report available on its website, BBC Media Action explains: “In 2008, BBC Media Action launched its three-year project ‘Socially Responsible Media Platforms in the Arab World’ with funding from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Syria News was the official Syrian partner, endorsed by the Ministry of Information on behalf of the BBC. The project aimed to set up an interactive online training platform, the Ara2 [opinions] Academy, for Syria’s journalistic and blogging communities, creating networks between the two. This reflected the changing status of bloggers in the regional media and responded to their aspiration to be seen as credible social commentators. The project also supported Syria News as an example of a sustainable independent media organisation, with managerial staff taking part in study tours in London and in business development training. BBC Media Action did not work with a local partner on blogger training, as this could have alienated and excluded parts of the blogging community. Instead, the BBC collaborated with an informal network of bloggers from across the country and recruited mentors for the distance learning system (the Ara2 Academy) who were trained at workshops in London and Damascus”.

One could not have wished for a clearer description of a Trojan horse, funded by one government in order to destabilize another. Just to go over the timeline again: the three-year BBC Action Syria Project started in 2008. The “Syrian uprising” began in February 2011.

Who is running the Western mainstream media?

by Kourosh Ziabari

Saturday, July 21st, 2012

We usually hear the boastful assertions of the leaders of the Western mainstream media that their media outlets are ideologically, financially and politically independent of their respective governments and what they put forward as packages of information to be consumed by the readers or viewers are unbiased, realistic, unprejudiced and objective.

The Western mainstream media conventionally boast of being professional and attached to the morals of journalism; however, the only thing which is missing in the coverage of these media of the international developments is ethical values, honesty and straightforwardness.

One of the most striking examples of the Western media’s indifference towards the aptitude of their audiences was their coverage of the 2008-2009 Gaza Massacre. From BBC to Reuters, from CNN to Sky News and from Washington Post to New York Times, all of them tried to put a lid on the felonies of theIsraeli regime and by astutely playing with words, downgraded the scale of atrocity and violence exercised by the Israel Defense Forces. They refused to admit that what Israel was committing was an all-out massacre, so they simply eliminated the term “massacre” from their reports and in one of the most controversial cases, the state-run BBC, of whose deceitful tricks we are used to hearing, refused to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee’s humanitarian appeal for Gaza under the growing pressure of the Israeli lobby.

This refusal to air an appeal for humanitarian aid for the crisis-hit Gaza was something which even the British public complained about. On January 23, 2009, Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, wrote a letter to the BBC, Sky and ITV, expressing his “disappointment” that the appeal would not be broadcast. On Sunday, January 25, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams called on the BBC to air the appeal, along with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Minister Shahid Malik.
According to a report by the Guardian, BBC admited on the same day that it had received 11,000 complaints from the public about its pro-Israeli decision.

In the same year and while the conflict in the beleaguered Gaza Strip was culminating to a humanitarian crisis, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution, condemning Israel for perpetrating war crimes and killing unarmed civilians in Gaza who hadn’t any access to the outside world to even meet their most essential needs, including medicine, foodstuff and stationery for students. Reuter’s report of the UNHRC’s decision was flagrantly lopsided and showed that Reuters and media outlets similar to it, follow nothing but the dictated trajectory of their respective governments. The report, dated January 12, 2009, started like this, “The United Nations Human Rights Council, dominated by Muslim states and their allies, condemned Israel on Monday for “grave violations” of human rights of the people of Gaza.”

It’s interesting that Reuters and their cronies perpetually fail to realize that UNSC, composed of 5 permanent members which hold a right of veto, itself an insult to humanity, is dominated by those who have the least respect for the opinion of 190 countries which are not members of this discriminatory council. In its coverage of the sanctions imposed by the UNSC on Iran, Reuters never used the phrase that “the UNSC, dominated by the US and its European stooges” has passed a new resolution against Iran over its nuclear program; but at the same time, it blatantly described the United Nations Human Rights Council as an organization which is dominated by the Muslims and their allies – one of the tactics of propaganda which the Western mainstream media usually exercise. But the question is: who controls and governs these media outlets? Are they really representatives of the public opinion and people, or simply the puppets of a limited number of governments who want to brainwash the people around the world and distort, falsify and misrepresent the realities before their eyes?

The answer to the first question is that, TV channels such as BBC, France 24, CNN and Fox News are absolutely state-owned and state-run. Aside from the fact that the key figures in all of these media channels are well-off, influential Jews who advertise the interests of the Israeli regime, these outlets are inescapably responsible for advocating and propagating the mindset of the statesmen and their respective governments in order to survive and remain on the stage.

The BBC World Service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the British government department responsible for promoting the interests of the United Kingdom abroad. According to the BBC’s 2008-2009 Annual Report, the network received £294.6 million of governmental grants which simply constitutes a small portion of the total budget which is allocated to the BBC World Service by the UK government.

The same goes with Fox News. This TV channel is controlled by the media conglomerate News Corporation which is owned by the Jewish Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch. News Corporation is the world’s third largest media conglomerate after the Walt Disney Company and Time Warner. However, the funding of Fox News and News Corporation comes from the US Department of Defense. Fox News has always claimed that it’s an independent media outlet which gives room to both conservatives and democrats to speak out their mind. It denies any allegation of pro-Israeli bias and refuses to admit that it’s controlled by Pentagon. But the reality is somewhat different. A small number of affluent and prosperous Jews who have ties with the high-ranking US officials control the mass media in the United States.

An interesting report by the US National Alliance showed that a striking majority of the US media, including magazines, newspapers, TV channels, radio stations and news websites are run by the extremist Zionists who are very close to the White House.

The largest media conglomerate in the world today is Time Warner. Among its subsidiaries are New Line Cinema, Time Inc., HBO, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW Television Network, TheWB.com, Warner Bros., Kids’ WB, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Adult Swim, CNN, DC Comics, Hanna-Barbera, Cartoon Network Studios and Castle Rock Entertainment. Each of these subordinates possesses hundreds of magazines, news networks and TV stations which has made the company a giant which seems to be totally undefeatable and indissoluble.

“Warner, founded by the Jewish Warner brothers in the early part of the last century, rapidly became part of the Jewish power base in Hollywood, a fact so well-known that it is openly admitted by Jewish authors, as is the fact that each new media acquisition becomes dominated by Jews in turn,” reads the report by the National Alliance institute.

The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 2003 revenues of $27.1 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its leading personality and CEO who chaired the company from 1984 to 2005, Michael Eisner, is a Jew.

“Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress,” the report adds.

Lo and behold, it’s said that Zionists control more than 95% of the world’s mainstream media. Robert Chernin who was until 2009 President and Chief Operating Officer of News Corporation, and Chairman and CEO of Fox Entertainment Group is an ardent Jew. He played an important role in laying the groundwork for the 2003 invasion of Iraq by staging a rigorous and severe media propaganda through Fox News. He advocated the invasion of Iraq and brainwashed the American public to convince them that a military expedition was necessary in Iraq.

Other names can be found who are among the most powerful figures of the mainstream media in the United States and run several newspapers, TV channels and radio stations. Mortimer Zuckerman, the 148th wealthiest American by 2008 is the owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups in the United States.

American journalist, Jeffrey Blankfort has written in an article published by Rense.com that Leslie Moonves, president of CBS television, is a great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of the Israeli regime and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers.

Overall, the claim that the American or British media outlets are free, independent and reliable is an empty claim for which there is no prooft. American and British media are funded by their respective governments and controlled by a number of fervent Zionists who seek nothing but the promotion of the interests of Israel in the Middle East.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

EU statement on the Middle East – complicity, duplicity and hypocrisy

by Leslie Bravery
Tuesday, May 15th, 2012

 The section of the EU statement concerning “heeding the aspirations of the people in the region” appears to juxtapose those of “the Palestinians for statehood” with “those of Israelis for security” because the Palestinian need for security is never mentioned in EU pronouncements. Yet the statement considers security to be “a crucial element for lasting peace, stability and prosperity in the region.” While the statement acknowledges Israel’s role in the “prevention of peaceful Palestinian cultural, economic, social or political activities” it fails to observe that such activities are also requirements for Palestinian security.

While undeniable reality forces the EU statement to recognise the applicability of international humanitarian law in occupied Palestinian territory, including the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilians, the EU does no more than “urge” and “call for” Israeli compliance. While the EU is “appalled by recurring rocket attacks from Gaza and condemns in the strongest terms violence deliberately targeting civilians” it fails to comment on attacks (sometimes fatal and always economically damaging) by the Israeli Navy on Palestinian fishing boats.
It would appear that the EU does not regard these attacks as “appalling” and, worse, does not even believe they are worth mentioning. EU bias is demonstrated further when it merely expresses “deep concern” regarding settler extremism and incitement by settlers in the West Bank (aided and abetted by the Israeli state) from whence no missiles are fired. It is true that the EU does condemn “continuous settler violence and deliberate provocations against Palestinian civilians” but similarly only “calls” upon the occupying power “to bring the perpetrators to justice and to comply with its obligations under international law.”

The EU’s statement carefully avoids mentioning Israel’s illegal annexation Wall in the West Bank and the segregated, Jewish-only, roads and the holding of Palestinian prisoners without charge or trial. The organisation recognises that Israel, the belligerent occupying power, is in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention yet does nothing to encourage the world community to force Israel to comply with international law. On the contrary, the EU joins with Western governments and requires the defenceless, occupied, Palestinian people to negotiate under extreme duress with their oppressor.

As for the proclaimed ‘negotiations’ goal of two states living side-by-side in peace, it should be remembered that one of Israel’s non-negotiable pre-conditions (besides those concerning the permanence of illegal settlements and the “eternal indivisibility” of Jerusalem) is the de-militarisation of the so-called future Palestinian state and the complete surrender of its air space and borders to Israeli control. Well aware of this, the EU is nevertheless quite prepared to abandon the Palestinian people to both their present condition and the developing Zionist plan for Palestine. This is a betrayal that threatens all humanity. EU complicity, along with the duplicity and hypocrisy that accompanies it, must be tirelessly exposed and challenged.

Leslie Bravery – 15 May 2012

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Meet the New York Times’ New Israel-Palestine News Chief

Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun Magazine, is known for his frequent condemnations of Israeli violence against Palestinians. He is labeled “pro-Palestinian” for such statements and is regularly attacked by pro-Israel zealots who charge that he is disloyal to the Jewish state.
Yet, in reality, Lerner frequently speaks of his devotion to Israel and states that his actions are taken in considerable part to protect it.

A while ago Lerner explained the difference in his feelings about Israelis compared to his feelings about Palestinians. “[T]here is a difference in my emotional and spiritual connection to these two sides,” Lerner said.
“On the one side is my family; on the other side are decent human beings. I want to support human beings all over the planet but I have a special connection to my family.”

This statement comes to mind when one considers the New York Times bureau chiefs who cover Israel-Palestine.
The most recent person to be chosen for this powerful post at arguably the most influential newspaper in the United States is Jodi Rudoren. She takes the place of Ethan Bronner, who was preceded by Steven Erlanger, who was preceded by James Bennet, who was preceded by Deborah Sontag. All, according to an Israeli report, are Jewish.

Most Americans — particularly those who would object to only white reporters covering racial issues or only male reporters covering gender issues — are reluctant to discuss the potential bias in such a profoundly un-diverse system, having been conditioned to fear that such discussion would be “anti-Semitic” or would open the commentator to this extremely damaging accusation.

In Israel, however, it is considered appropriate to discuss the Jewish roots of American politicians and journalists since Israel was created specifically to be “the Jewish state,” Jews have elevated status in it, and the vast majority of Israeli land is officially owned by “world Jewry” (although some individuals have publicly opted out).

An article on the Jerusalem Post website, a major Israeli newspaper, focuses on this aspect. The article, “Judaism at the New York Times”, reports that “all New York Times’ bureau chiefs for at least the last fifteen years have been Jewish.”

The article’s author, Ashley Rindsberg, notes that “the Times doesn’t consistently send Russian Americans to its Moscow bureau… or Mexican Americans to lead its Mexico City bureau…” and asks, “Why does the New York Times consistently send Jewish journalists to head their central office in the Jewish State?”

Rindsberg, who like many conservative Israelis considers the Times’ reporting anti-Israel, provides a somewhat convoluted answer. The Times’ Jewish owners, Rindsberg posits, are uncomfortable with their Jewish identity. Therefore, he claims, they “would just as soon as not have reporters who could be identified for their Jewishness. And to prove it, they send Jews to the Jewish State to report in a most un-Jewish way.”

The Times’ history of pro-Israel coverage

Despite Rindsberg’s view of Times, analysis shows its coverage to be consistently pro-Israel. A 2005 study found that the Times reported on Israeli deaths at rates up to seven times greater than its reports on Palestinian deaths, even though Palestinian deaths occurred first and in far greater numbers.
A 2007 study of the Times’ coverage of various international reports on human rights violations by Israelis and by Palestinians found that the Times covered reports condemning Israeli human rights violations at a rate only one-twentieth the rate that it covered reports condemning Palestinian human rights violations. The investigation found that during the study period there had been 76 reports by humanitarian agencies condemning Israel for abuses and four condemning Palestinians for abuses. The Times carried two stories on each side.

In its early years the Times specifically avoided assigning Jewish reporters to cover Israel out of concern that such journalists would have an inherent conflict of interest. This policy was reversed in 1979 after Abe Rosenthal became the paper’s executive editor and explicitly decided to choose Jewish journalists for the position.

While his first attempt failed (he had thought his choice, David Shipler, was Jewish), the Columbia Journalism review reports that most of the journalists who succeeded Shipler, beginning with Thomas Friedman, have been of Jewish ethnicity. The article notes that “for a century [the Times] has served, in effect, as the hometown paper of American Jewry.”

Former NY Times executive editor Max Frankel, who was an editor at the Times from 1972 through 2000, admitted in his memoirs: “I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert … Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.”

An article by star reporter and author Grace Halsell describes her firsthand experience with pro-Israel bias at the Times in the early 1980s.

Halsell had written books about the plight of Native Americans, African Americans, and undocumented Mexican workers. She was a great favorite of New York Times matriarch Iphigene Ochs Sulzberger, whose father had acquired the Times in 1896, whose husband and then son had run it next, and whose grandson is now in charge.
Journey to Jerusalem
When Halsell next wrote a powerful book describing the Palestinian plight, she incurred Mrs. Suzberger’s displeasure and was quickly dropped by the Times. Halsell writes: “I had little concept that from being buoyed so high I could be dropped so suddenly when I discovered—from her point of view—the ‘wrong’ underdog.”

In her article Halsell quotes a revealing statement by an Israeli journalist following Israel’s 1996 shelling of a U.N. base in Lebanon that killed more than 100 civilians sheltering in it: “We believe with absolute certitude that right now, with the White House in our hands, the Senate in our hands and The New York Times in our hands, the lives of others do not count the same way as our own.”

Since 1984 New York Times bureau chiefs have lived in a house that was acquired for the Times by then Jerusalem Bureau Chief Thomas Friedman (now the Times’ lead foreign policy columnist). The building originally belonged to a Palestinian family forced out in Israel’s 1947-49 founding war. Israel afterward prevented the family from returning and reclaiming their home. Therefore, Times’ bureau chiefs are in the strange position of living in a home that was stolen from Palestinians (acquiring property by violent conquest is illegal in today’s world).

Recent Situation: Bronner, Kershner, & Khader Adnan

Rudoren’s predecessor as Jerusalem bureau chief, Ethan Bronner, has a son who enlisted in the Israeli military. When this conflict with impartiality was exposed, even the Times’ own ombudsman suggested that journalistic ethics required that Bronner be moved to a different beat. Yet, Times then-editor Bill Keller insisted that this gave Bronner “special sophistication” and kept him in his position.

Bronner’s colleague at the bureau has been Isabel Kershner, who will apparently be staying on. J.J. Goldberg, editor of the Forward, writes: “Isabel Kershner immigrated to Israel from her native England as a young woman and spent a couple of decades in Israeli journalism and Jewish education before joining the Times a few years ago. By now she’s thoroughly Israeli (and, for full disclosure, a friend).”

While pro-Israel Zealots vehemently attack Bronner and Kershner when they cover Palestinian victimization, the truth is that they overlook a great many instances. For example, a 33-year-old Palestinian father of two young girls (another child is on the way) was on a hunger strike that lasted for 66 days. He was was near near death when he finally decided to end it on Feb 21.

The young man, Khader Adnan, was protesting his imprisonment by Israel – he was never charged with a crime – and the beatings and humiliations he endured from Israeli interrogators. There was an extended international campaign about him that grew even more urgent when doctors began warning after 45 days that he was at risk of death. Eventually, there was so much pressure world wide (including by UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk and EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton) that Israel announced it would release Adnan at the end of his “sentence.”

Yet, Bronner and Kershner – and Times columnists who frequently bemoan the alleged lack of a Palestinian Gandhi – did not publish a single story on Adnan until the 66th (and last) day of his hunger strike – after the Washington Post had finally carried a report two days before. The Times’ headline was the very bland, “Hearing for Palestinian on Hunger Strike Is Set.

While Adnan’s is the longest Palestinian hunger strike on record, through the years there have been hundreds of hunger strikes by multitudes of Palestinians in Israeli prisons; the Times almost never reports on them. It’s revealing to compare their numerous stories on the Israeli tank gunner captured by Palestinians, Gilad Shalit, to the sparsity of their reporting on Adnan and others.

Overall, the thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel seem largely to have been invisible to Times’ reporters. While there have been gruesome reports of their torture for decades, there is little indication that Bronner or Kershner have investigated this or made much, if any, effort to visit Palestinians in Israeli prisons.

Who is Jodi Rudoren?

Now that Bronner’s four-year term has come to an end (he says he initiated the transfer himself and was not pushed out over conflict of interest), it is not clear what went into new editor Jill Abramson’s decision to choose Rudoren for this powerful position.

A cum laude graduate from Yale, Rudoren’s journalistic experience appears to be limited to domestic subjects. Most recently she had been head of the Times’ Education bureau. She speaks what she calls “functional Hebrew” but no Arabic. It’s unknown how much time, if any, she has spent in Israel, whether she has family there, or whether she has family members in the Israeli military.

When Rudoren received a tweet by Palestinian-American author Ali Abunimah, who noted that she would be moving into stolen Palestinian property, she responded: “Hey there. Would love to chat sometime. About things other than the house. My friend Kareem Fahim [a New York Times associate] says good things.”

This friendly but somewhat flip response to a serious subject has caused Israel zealots to attack her. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg somewhat hysterically equated Abunimah, an author known for his intellectual analysis, with Israeli Jewish supremacists known for their violence.

Goldberg suggested that Rudoren should have “twinned” her tweet to Abunimah by reaching out to Kahanists — a group listed by both Israel and the U.S. as terrorists. Goldberg should be pleased to learn that Rudoren said she had done just that, telling the Jerusalem Post, “One of the people I followed before reaching out to Abunimah was David Ha’ivri.”

Ha’ivri is an extremist settler rabbi who was involved with Jewish Defense League founder Meir Kahane’s Kach terror group, celebrated the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when he had begun to make peace with Palestinians, and was convicted some years ago for desecrating a mosque.

Abunimah, on the other hand, has written a book called “One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse,” in which he describes how Israelis and Palestinians can live together in peace.

Rudoren’s knowledge of Hebrew may have been bolstered by her summertime attendance at Camp Yavneh, a Jewish camp in New Hampshire that has an Israeli flag at the top of its website and boasts of its “strong Israeli programming.” It features a six-weeks “summer in Israel” program, though it’s unknown whether Rudoren attended this.

The camp website states that the current boys’ head counselor “grew up in Gush Etzion, Israel, and has served as a Lieutenant Commander in the Israeli Army in charge of 150 soldiers in the Givatti Brigade.” Another counselor is a resident of the Israeli settlement of Efrat, which, like all Israeli settlements, is built on confiscated Palestinian land and is illegal under international law.
Despite an upbringing that appears to have included considerable immersion in Zionist mythology, indications are that Rudoren may be working to widen her view. She raves about a book by Peter Beinart called “The Crisis of Zionism” and retweeted a message by blogger Sami Kishawi. It’s interesting to note that the Times’ only other female Jerusalem bureau chief, Deborah Sontag, often provided exemplary coverage; her term seems to have ended early.

Tweeting like a J-Street official?

Jeffrey Goldberg – who moved to Israel, became an Israeli citizen, joined the Israeli army, and worked as a prison guard at one of Israel’s most brutal prisons – assures readers that Rudoren is still within the pro-Israel fold, commenting, “I don’t know Rudoren… I do know her sister, from synagogue, mainly, and I don’t think Jodi is some sort of anti-Israel activist…”

Goldberg is concerned, however, that she is tweeting “as if she’s a J Street official.” For Goldberg this veers dangerously toward anti-Israelism.

In reality, however, J Street is a pro-Israel organization whose positions are dictated by what is good for Israel. Its founder has just published a book entitled “A New Voice for Israel.” If Goldberg’s assessment of Rudoren is accurate, then it appears that once again the Times has a person at the helm of its reporting on Israelis and Palestinians for whom Israelis are “family.” Quite possibly, literally.
Rudoren may be intending to cover the region accurately and with fairness. To do so, however, it appears that she will need to overcome enormous ingrained bias, relentless and vitriolic objections of the organized pro-Israel community (quite likely including friends and family), and pressure by many powerful Times advertisers and colleagues.

On top of this, unless she chooses a different lifestyle than her predecessors’, she will be living in Israel, her children will go to Israeli schools, and her home will be one of the thousands confiscated from Palestinians who are now living and suffering largely out of sight, their daily humiliations and victimization for the most part invisible.

These winds may be so strong that even when Rudoren believes she has stood upright against them, an outside view may show her tilted far over in the Israeli direction, her reporting on Israel-Palestine, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, covering the gamut from A to C.
Let us hope that this doesn’t occur.

Let us hope Rudoren understands that good reporting does not equate a false narrative with a factual one; that she will not be, in Abunimah’s words, yet “another New York Times reporter for whom Palestinians are just bit players in someone else’s drama.”

Let us hope she understands that living in stolen property is not a good base from which to report honestly; that “balance” achieved by under-reporting Palestinian suffering while exaggerating that of Israelis is not balance, it is distortion. Let us hope, most of all, that she does not view some human beings as more important than others, but instead views all, regardless of their religion or ethnicity, as family.

Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew and president of the Council for the National Interest. She can be reached at contact@ifamericanslknew.org. Bulk reprints of this article can be obtained from orders@ifamericansknew.org

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

UN Watch statement on Syrian human rights situation reveals pro-Israel motivation

The Passionate Attachment

In a December 2 letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council, UN Watch wrote that

the Security Council must end its shocking silence on Syria’s atrocities. It must take urgent action to protect the civilian population before thousands more are beaten, tortured and killed.

A few lines later, the NGO undermined its purported concern for Syrian civilians when it condemned the UN Human Rights Council for

its policy of supporting Syria’s cynical and transparent ploy each year to condemn Israel for alleged violations of human rights, which should not be repeated this March.

The letter did not mention, however, that UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, a key component of the Israel lobby.

In February, the pro-Israel NGO organised 70 non-governmental organisations to send letters to President Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon demanding international action against Libya invoking the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine.
Clearly buoyed by that “humanitarian” success in North Africa, UN Watch is now determined to “protect” Israel’s nearer Arab neighbours.
In case you missed it:  The Road to Hell: Libya and Now Syria?

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Great Britain : Goodbye to International Law

On 15 September 2011 Great Britain changed its UJ law to allow the government, in the person of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to veto any arrest warrant referencing universal jurisdiction issued by a British judge.
by Dr. Lawrence Davidson
Now we have proof of this process of erosion. On 15 September 2011 Great Britain changed its UJ law to allow the government, in the person of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to veto any arrest warrant referencing universal jurisdiction issued by a British judge. What that means is that when crimes against humanity are committed by representatives of a power friendly to Britain, the government can negate any risk of arrest for those persons while visiting British soil. This happens to be the British government’s response to warrants issued for the arrest of Israeli personages such as former foreign minister Lzipi Livni in 2009. The British UJ law exists by virtue of Great Britain being a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention but that does not seem to matter. For the sake of friendly relations with Israel, the British government is willing to render its obligations under international law moot.
Of course the British government does not explain its actions that way. Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke insists that the government is “clear about our international obligations.” This change in the law is simply designed to “ensure…that universal jurisdiction cases are only proceeded with on the basis of solid evidence that is likely to lead to successful prosecution.” The fact that Israeli crimes against the Palestinians are among the best documented seems not to be part of Clarke’s judicial world. Indeed, according to Matthew Gould, Britain’s ambassador to Israel, warrants issued against Israelis for war crimes and crimes against humanity are only “abuses” of Britain’s judicial system carried out “for political reasons.”
Part II – Double Standards
Israeli Major General Yoav Galant
In truth, what the British government has done is institutionalize double standards. Just imagine what would happen if the head of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassem Brigades (Hamas’s military wing) flew into Heathrow to see some sick friend. The British Zionists would have a judge issue a warrant within the hour and the British government would enforce it without question. Now imagine that at about the same time Israeli Major General Yoav Galant arrived. Galant was Israel’s Chief of Staff during Operation Cast Lead and publically stated that the operation turned Gaza into an “ideal training zone” to test new weapons that were often themselves banned under international law. With this new qualification of the UJ law, nothing at all would happen to Galant. And that double standard is absolutely in place “for political reasons.”
This is a disastrous precedent because other countries will almost certainly follow the British example. However, it is not the only case of erosion of international law. The international law referencing behavior on the high seas has recently been called into question and guess who forced that issue. Israel again. This is function of the fact that all the major powers, and the UN as well, proved willing to let the Israelis off the hook for attacking an unarmed Turkish vessel in international waters and killing nine passengers. Only Turkey has taken a stand for international law. Then there is the U.S. corruption of the International Criminal Court (see my analysis “International Law and the Problem of Enforcement” posted on 4 June 2011) and finally the repeated use of a U.S. veto at the Security Council to protect its ally–again Israel–when that country violates international law by moving its own population into occupied territory and commits daily crimes against the Palestinians.
Part II – Conclusion
Generally speaking, if it is a great power or allied to one, a government can do just about any horrible thing it wants as long as it does it to its own citizens and within its own borders. Thus, if Hitler, as chancellor of a great power, had just stuck to killing every last German Jew, communist, retarded person, etc. he almost certainly would have gotten away with it. That is the power of sovereignty. If Saddam Hussein, as a U.S. ally, had confined himself to killing Iraqi Kurds and Shiites by the tens of thousands no one would have intervened. But in both of these cases the dictators made the mistake of incurring the wrath of great powers by crossing a border for reasons other than blatant self-defense. Now the Israelis have shown that this criterion (sticking to your own territory when you do your killing) to be an arbitrary one. They cross borders all the time (as does their great power patron). My guess is that, unlike Iraq, the Israelis could have invaded Kuwait and gotten away with it! That is because they are more than just protected by the United States. Washington does not control its ally, its ally controls Washington.
Israeli front organizations such as AIPAC control the information flow and dictate relevant Middle East foreign policy to the government of the “greatest power on earth.” That is why joint resolutions, standing ovations for the likes of Netanyahu, and such stupid proclamations as “Israel has the right to annex the West Bank” flow uninterrupted from the halls of Congress.
It is odd. The only thing that stands between all of us and the next holocaust is international law and treaty provisions such as universal jurisdiction. But who cares? Not the U.S. or British governments and not the Zionists. No. Memory fades and double standards are, after all, a universal human failing. So it is just a matter of time before it happens all over again. Not in some far away place like the Balkans or Africa or the Far East, but once more right here in the West. Just as if the primary civilian disaster of World War II never happened.
Lawrence Davidson is a Professor of Middle East History at West Chester University in West ChesterPennsylvania.He is the author of America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood (University Press of Florida, 2001), Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 2003), and, co-author with Arthur Goldschmidt of the Concise History of the Middle East, 8th and 9th Editions (Westview Press, 2006 and 2009). His latest book is entitled Foreign Policy, Inc.: Privatizing American National Interest (University of Kentucky Press, 2009). Professor Davidson travels often and widely in the Middle East. He also has taken on the role of public intellectual in order to explain to American audiences the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East
ldavidson@wcupa.edu

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

What they don’t tell you about Libya

Pravda.Ru
13.09.2011
What they don't tell you about Libya. 45360.jpegWe all saw Khamis al-Qathafi killed and resurrected five or six times by the “mainstream” media, we all saw William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, lying through his teeth by affirming that Colonel Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela, then not even issuing an apology after such a blatant example of disinformation and slander. They are quick to tell you everything, it seems, except the truth.
And what is the truth? We all know what they did tell you, now let’s see what they didn’t. For a start, let us see the reply from the British Ministry of Defence to a perfectly simple and straightforward question:
Question:
Have French and British special forces been operating inside Libya at any time since the beginning of the conflict?
Reply:
“We do not normally comment on Special Forces matters and we see no reason to change that policy on this occasion.”
So, no categorical denial. No vehement or indignant affirmation that such would be a violation on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions covering the case (1970 and 1973 – 2011) and so of course not. And why?

function openPrint(url) { var printWin = window.open(url, “print”, “width=800,height=600,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,status=yes” ) printWin.focus(); return false; } var _php_url_send = ‘/?area=popupSendToFriend&t=a&id=119029’; var fs = new FontSizer(‘article’);

Let us see the news coming out of Libya from sources either inside the country or linked to sources outside with credible information. Obviously, one cannot be everywhere and one does not have the gift of omniscience; however, the “credible” “mainstream” biased media sources which were in situ and have been reporting from Libya have been reporting what? Lies. Remember the “air strikes” by the Libyan Air Force against civilians? There weren’t any.
They said nothing about the democratic nature of the Jamahiriya system of Government (a Google search will make interesting reading, as will Muammar al-Qathafi’s Green Book), they said nothing about the terrorist and foreign nature of this so-called rebellion, they said nothing about where these “rebel” flags suddenly came from, they did not explain why the “rebellion” started on the western and eastern frontiers and not among the youth in the capital Tripoli.
They tried to play down the world’s largest demonstrations in support of their leader, 1.7 million residents of Tripoli coming out to support Colonel Gaddafi, which in comparative terms would be 20 million Britons or 100 million Americans. Would a fraction of these turn out to support Cameron or Obama? Probably to throw eggs and tomatoes, yes. To support, no.
So what is the information coming out of Libya?
There are reports that in recent days, NATO-backed Terrorist forces have been repelled in Bani Walid and Sirt – and that over a thousand terrorist elements have been liquidated (pending confirmation). There are reports that two NATO helicopters have been brought down over Sabah and that all the NATO mercenaries inside were destroyed. A group of terrorists heading towards Bani Walid to terrorise its citizens was intercepted by the Alassabaa tribe and 35 of these elements were destroyed.
A ratfight (fight among terrorist groups) took place in Tripoli, today leaving 30 of this scourge dead.
There are reports that 35 British SAS operationals were liquidated in a successful defence against this illegal aggression by the Libyan Armed Forces and in Abu Saleem district at the weekend, 7 British special force elements were destroyed. On Tuesday, a large number of terrorist forces were liquidated by the members of the Al Magarra tribe south of Tripoli as they headed south. In Ghadamis, there are reports of two French special forces captured.
On the eastern front, 50 terrorists who tried to enter al-Brega were eliminated. The manipulated and biased press are saying nothing of NATO war crimes, violations of the UNSC Resolutions or the fact that the NATO/terrorist forces control around 30% of Libyan territory, at most.
On the legal front, David Cameron and William Hague have been aiding and abetting the LIFG group inside Libya which is proscribed on the FCO lists as a terrorist group. Therefore under the UK’s own Terrorism Acts (2006), surely a crime has been committed by the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary?
The biased media has said nothing of NATO’s continued war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Conventions, strafing civilians with helicopters, taking sides in an internal conflict, violation of the terms of the UNSC Resolution, attacking civilian structures and supplies with military hardware.
The result is that NATO and its political and military leaders have lost all credibility, as they face the call from millions of people around the world to put them on trial for their war crimes.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Lauren Booth: Bias at the BBC


http://www.presstv.ir/player/player1.swf

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Al Jazeera Distorts Facts of Syrian Events, Fabricates Fake Eyewitnesses, False Stories

As some biased Medias continue to distort facts and spread incitements, Al Jazeera satellite TV channel fabricated on Friday an eye-witness saying he is a dentist named Mohammad Abdul Rahman.

Abdul Rahman provided false information about clashes that supposedly took place between the security forces and protesters in the Syrian city of Homs.

A few minutes later, the real dentist Mohammad Abdul Rahman called the Syrian Satellite Channel, and strictly condemned the exploitation of his name and status as doctor to provide false information and fabricated stories regarding Homs events.

“I was surprised when one of my friends called me saying that my name was aired on Al Jazeera as an eyewitness…. I didn’t call that channel. The broadcast statement is false and is in the framework of the huge media incitement campaign targeting Syria by this channel”, the real Mohammad Abdul Rahman added.

That was not the only time Al Jazeera falls into this trap.

Ammar Wahud, most probably an alias of a Syrian citizen, called Al Jazeera satellite channel claiming he was one of the protesters and he has information to tell about the protests in the city of Baniyas.
Al Jazeera believed Ammar would be a perfect catch to add to its collection of “eyewitnesses”. When Ammar was on air with the anchor, he started at first thanking Al Jazeera channel for the opportunity he was given to speak, and later talked about the Baniyas demonstrations saying “There are mass protests in Baniyas but they are all in support of President Bashar Assad”.

The Syrian “eyewitness” then criticized the satellite channel for its biased coverage of the events in Syria, yet he couldn’t continue his comments, for the call was “ended” amidst the anchor’s stupor for what just happened.

Al Jazeera continues to fabricate the truth, for when it installed four live cameras covering the events in Syria, it appeared that the videos broadcasted from the Baniyas are of a “zoomed in” damaged resolution, and were shot via a mobile phone camera live through the TV channel’s satellite moons.

Furthermore, 5 minutes after Ammar Wahud’s live remarks, an alleged protester (claiming to be present at that time among the protesters) in Baniyas went live on Al Jazeera to deny what Ammar has stated. If he really were among protesters, how would the remarks of Ammar reach him so fast? Unless this so-called protester was “recruited” by Al Jazeera TV to fabricate all stories and events that are truly taking place in the Syrian areas.
====

Bin Jeddo resigns from al-Jazeera TV, Bin Jeddo Confirms Resignation to Al Manar Website

Apr 23, 2011

Beirut, (SANA)-Lebanese As-Safir newspaper quoted reliable sources as saying that journalist Ghassan bin Jeddo, Director of al-Jazeera TV in Beirut, resigned after the TV station had shifted from being a media source into an operation room for instigation.

“Bin Jeddo tendered his resignation several days ago,” the sources said, adding that the reason behind this step was because al-Jazeera has abandoned profession and objectively and turned into “a room for instigation and mobilization.

” The sources underlined that one of the reasons that pushed Bin Jeddo to resign is the provocative policy of al-Jazeera which is unacceptable, particularly in light of the historical juncture the region is passing through.

Mazen

Bin Jeddo Confirms Resignation to Al Manar Website

Local Editor

Head of Al Jazeera TV Station Office in Beirut Ghassan Bin Jeddo resigned from his post a few days ago, as “Al Jazeera has abandoned professionalism and objectivity, turning from a media source into an operation room that incites and mobilizes,” Lebanese As-Safir newspaper reported on Saturday.

Bin Jeddo confirmed this step in an interview with Al Manar website. He pointed out that “the reasons published in As-Safir behind the resignation are true, however they are not the full reasons”, adding that various other issues urged him to take this step that he will talk about its details later.

The Lebanese daily has quoted reliable sources saying that the unprofessional inciting attitude that Al jazeera is adopting at this historic phase in the region is unacceptable.

The sources indicated to As-Safir the ethical base of Bin Jeddo’s resignation, as he cannot accept the station’s full coverage to the situation in Libya, Yemen, and Syria, while completely blacking out the crisis in Bahrain.

As for the policy Al jazeera is following on the Syrian situation, the sources clarified that this case is a matter of morals and principles for Bin Jeddo.

As-Safir pointed out that former Al Jazeera journalist supports the Syrian people’s demands; however, he recognizes the important national role that Syria plays in the region.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The BBC is on Murdoch’s side

>

Published 30 September 2010

We deceive ourselves in thinking that the Beeb has a left-wing bias.
The corporation is in thrall to the same interests as Rupert Murdoch’s New Corp and the saviour of Iraq, Tony Blair.
Britain is said to be approaching its Berlusconi moment. That is to say, if Rupert Murdoch wins control of Sky, he will command half the television and newspaper market and threaten what is known as public service broadcasting. Although the alarm is ringing, it is unlikely that any government will stop him while his court is packed with politicians of all parties.

The problem with this and other Murdoch scares is that, while one cannot doubt their gravity, they deflect from an unrecognised and more insidious threat. For all his power, Murdoch’s media are not respectable. Take the current colonial wars. In the United States, Murdoch’s Fox Television is almost cartoon-like in its warmongering. It is the august New York Times, “the greatest newspaper in the world”, and others such as the once-celebrated Washington Post, that have given respectability to the lies and moral contortions of the “war on terror”, now recast as “perpetual war”.

In Britain, the Observer performed this task in making respectable Tony Blair’s deceptions over Iraq. More importantly, so did the BBC, whose reputation is its power. In spite of one maverick reporter’s attempt to expose the so-called dodgy dossier, the BBC took Blair’s sophistry at face value. This was made clear in studies by Cardiff University and the German-based Media Tenor. The BBC’s coverage, said the Cardiff study, was overwhelmingly “sympathetic to the government’s case”. According to Media Tenor, a mere 2 per cent of BBC news in the build-up to the invasion permitted anti-war voices to be heard.

Coded message

So when the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, used the recent Edinburgh International Television Festival to attack Murdoch, his hypocrisy was like a presence. Thompson is the embodiment of a taxpayer-funded managerial elite, for whom political reaction has come to dominate public service. He has even laid into his own corporation, Murdoch-style, as “massively left-wing”. He was referring to the era of his 1960s predecessor Hugh Greene, who allowed artistic and journalistic freedom to flower at the BBC.

Thompson is the opposite of Greene; and his aspersion on the past is in keeping with the BBC’s modern corporate role, reflected in the rewards demanded by those at the top. Thompson was paid £834,000 last year out of public funds and his 50 senior executives earn more than the prime minister, along with enriched journalists such as Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce.

Murdoch and the BBC share this corporatism. Tony Blair, for example, was their quintessential politician. Before his election in 1997, he and his wife were flown first-class by Murdoch to Hayman Island in Queensland, where he stood at the News Corp lectern and, in effect, pledged an obedient Labour administration. His coded message on media cross-ownership and deregulation was that a way would be found for Murdoch to achieve the supremacy that now beckons.

Blair was embraced by the new BBC corporate class, which regards itself as meritorious and non-ideological – the natural leaders in a managerial Britain in which class is unspoken. Few did more to enunciate Blair’s “vision” than Andrew Marr, then a leading newspaper journalist and today the BBC’s ubiquitous voice of middle-class Britain. Just as Murdoch’s Sun declared in 1995 that it shared the rising Blair’s “high moral values”, so Marr, writing in the Observer in 1999, lauded the new prime minister’s “substantial moral courage” and the “clear distinction in his mind between prudently protecting his power base and rashly using his power for high moral purposes”. What impressed Marr was Blair’s “utter lack of cynicism” – along with his bombing of Yugoslavia, which would “save lives”.

No laughing matter

By March 2003, Marr was the BBC’s political editor. Standing in Downing Street on the night of the “shock and awe” assault on Iraq, he rejoiced at the vindication of Blair who, he said, had promised “to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right.” As a result, Marr said, “tonight he stands as a larger man”. In fact, the criminal conquest of Iraq smashed a society, killing up to a million people, driving four million from their homes, contaminating cities such as Fallujah with cancer-causing poisons and leaving a majority of young children malnourished in a country once described by Unicef as a “model”.

So it was entirely appropriate that Blair, in hawking his self-serving book, should select Marr for his “exclusive TV interview” on the BBC. The headline across the Observer‘s review of the interview read: “Look who’s having the last laugh.” Beneath this was a picture of a beaming Blair sharing a laugh with Marr.
The interview produced not a single challenge that stopped Blair in his precocious, mendacious tracks. He was allowed to say: “Absolutely clearly and unequivocally, the reason for toppling [Saddam Hussein] was his breach of resolutions over WMD, right?” No, wrong. A wealth of evidence, not least the infamous Downing Street memo, makes clear that Blair secretly colluded with George W Bush to attack Iraq. This was not mentioned. At no point did Marr say to him, “You failed to persuade the UN Security Council to go along with the invasion. You and Bush went alone. Most of the world was outraged. Weren’t you aware that you were about to commit a monumental war crime?”

Instead, Blair used the convivial encounter to deceive, yet again, even to promote an attack on Iran, an outrage. Murdoch’s Fox would have differed in style only. The British public deserves better.

John Pilger, John Pilger is an internationally renowned investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest film is The War on Democracy. His most recent book is Freedom Next Time (Bantam/Random House, 2006).

In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. “John Pilger,” wrote Harold Pinter, “unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him.”
Read other articles by John, or visit John’s website.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

CNN axes Sanchez after anti-Jew remarks

>

[ 02/10/2010 – 02:16 PM ]

ATLANTA, (PIC)– Anti-Arab CNN on Friday announced it fired anchor Rick Sanchez a day after he assailed The Daily Show Jewish host John Stewart as a “bigot” and suggested that CNN and the other media outlets are run by Jews.

Sanchez made his remarks Thursday on the Sirius XM radio show “Stand Up! with Pete Dominick”.

CNN acted within 24 hours and declared Sanchez was no longer with the network. “We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well,” according to its statement.

The Daily Show retaliated and considered Sanchez an intellectual lightweight compared to CNN stars Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blizter and made him the butt of jokes, which Sanchez resented and described as racist.

CNN has always fought perceptions that it is pro-Arab and anti-Israel. In July, CNN fired veteran Middle East correspondent Octavia Nasr after she tweeted about the passing of Hezbollah’s Mohamed Fadlallah saying that she respected him a lot.

Sanchez’s first mistake

by Philip Weiss on October 2, 2010 · 

I must point out that Rick Sanchez, who was unceremoniously fired by CNN today for talking some trash about Jon Stewart and the Jewish ownership of networks, was one of the few network anchors to give any attention to the Palestinian side of the story. He was plainly alarmed by the Israeli assault on Gaza in 08-09. He interviewed Palestinian lawyer Diana Buttu. And below, he interviewed Mustafa Barghouti, and showed that Israel broke the cease-fire ahead of the Gaza onslaught. 


As for his recent comments about Jews not being an oppressed minority and Jews owning the television networks– it seems to me that these are legitimate subjects for discussion. Maybe his tone was inappropriate, maybe he should have gotten out the kid gloves. But they are legitimate subjects; and the manner of Sanchez’s dispatching is only likely to feed uninformed debate about the nature of the American establishment. Let’s talk about it.
Of course I hope that in his next incarnation Sanchez looks more deeply into the Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Somehow I sense that’s not in the cards…

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MOSQUE AND SYNAGOGUE

I4P

When Synagogues are attacked with graffiti it’s worldwide front page news. Usually 20 more articles can be found on the same incident and the “Anti Defamation League” is shouting at the top of it’s collective lungs. Immediately hundreds more articles are written, usually with theses types of headlines: “Rise In Hate Crimes Against Jews”, “Jewish Fears of More Attacks” or “Jews Under Attack” then they invariably go on to say that they are being persecuted worldwide.

Now,compare to the following tiny minuscule local report, which does not even come up in a search, and as usual, flies totally under the radar because no one gives a shite in the mainstream media. After all, it’s only Muslims and they don’t matter:

link Worshipers at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida are offering special prayers this morning after a small explosion and fire at the mosque Monday night.

“There was a lot noise outside,” the center’s Vice Chairman of the Board Ashraif Shaikh tells WOKV. “They opened the back door and there was fire outside.” “worshipers heard a loud noise outside the mosque as preparations were being made for the evening (isha) prayer at about 9:35 p.m.”

Tom Francis with JFRD says the arson unit was called to the mosque on the 2300 block of St. Johns Bluff Road around 10 p.m. and immediately discovered obvious signs of foul play, though Francis stopped short of saying what was found behind the Islamic Center, saying only it was “a combustible substance that had no business being here.”

CAIR reports early last month a white man in his 40s entered the Islamic Center during prayer services and shouted “stop this blaspheming.”
The man was chased away by worshipers, but was reported to say “I will be back.”

“A possible bias-motivated attack on a house of worship should be of great concern to Americans of all faiths, and particularly to our nation’s religious and political leaders,” CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said. “Those who shape public opinion must begin to speak out against the rising level of anti-Muslim sentiment in our society.”

Here Here!!

Posted by I4P Writers Group at 2:40 PM    

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Israel’s manufactured outrage over a presidential palace


Stephen Maher, The Electronic Intifada, 15 April 2010

Israel has gone out of its way in recent months to goad the Palestinians into confrontation. (Anne Paq/ActiveStills


The headlines were ablaze last week after the Palestinian Authority (PA) announced that it would build the new presidential compound on a street named after Yahya Ayyash.
Ayyash, whose nickname was “The Engineer,” was a Hamas military commander who orchestrated several attacks against Israeli civilian targets in the mid-1990s in response to the 1994 massacre of Palestinian worshipers at Hebron’s Ibrahimi mosque by an Israeli-American settler named Baruch Goldstein. In 1996, Ayyash was assassinated by Israel in Gaza City.
“This is a shocking incitement to terrorism by the Palestinian Authority,” boomed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a statement. “Arch-terrorist Ayyash,” as Netanyahu called him, had “murdered hundreds of innocent Israeli men, women and children,” and so building the presidential compound on this street was an act of “wild incitement by the Palestinians for terror and against peace.”

The United States reacted with strong support for the Israeli position. “Honoring terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians, either by official statements or by the dedication of public places, hurts peace efforts and must end,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.
The hysterical reaction of the Israeli government, and US support for it, is hardly surprising. Of note however is the double-standard exhibited by Israel and its patron, the US. The assumption throughout is that Israel’s actions are just, defensive and in pursuit of peace for all. Conversely, Palestinian actions are aggressive and evil, and worthy of worldwide condemnation. The strength of this narrative allows the US and Israeli governments to make the construction of a new government building on a street whose name Israel disproves of into a major incident, worthy of outrage and international condemnation, while grotesque Israeli crimes and far more flagrant provocations go unquestioned.
A Jerusalem Post editorial headlined “Glorifying Terrorism” exemplifies this point. The “inescapable message is that such crimes are the PA’s ideal,” the editorial stated, since it “acclaims malevolence instead of denouncing it.” The Jerusalem Post declared that the act was “an affront to the very notion of coexistence,” and yet another example of the PA’s “consistent policy” of “deception” and “insincerity” which has undermined “the Oslo promise.” “Our misfortune,” The Jerusalem Post lamented, “is that the world’s outrage is very selective and very misplaced.”

That such manufactured outrage could be delivered without a hint of irony is startling in light of recent events. This includes a series of internationally-condemned deliberate Israeli provocations — supported by Washington — in reaction to the UN-commissioned Goldstone report.

Investigated and published in the wake of Israel’s invasion of Gaza last winter, the Goldstone report documents the deliberate targeting of civilians, including the “systematically reckless” use of white phosphorous, showering densely-populated and impoverished refugee camps with the burning chemical, resulting in horrific burns and death. It also describes deliberate Israeli attacks on mosques, hospitals, schools, ambulances, UN facilities and indiscriminate bombardment of crowded slums. “You feel like an infantile little kid with a magnifying glass looking at ants, burning them,” one Israeli soldier said of the attack, which killed more than 1,300 Palestinians and left thousands more injured, mutilated and homeless.

In a shocking example of “acclaiming malevolence instead of denouncing it,” the US and Israel have attacked the report relentlessly and attempted to marginalize it, and Israel has refused to even conduct a credible investigation into its findings. While concerned citizens in cities around the world took to the streets to express their anger at the horrific atrocities documented in the report, the US called it “unbalanced” and “flawed” and moved to block its consideration at the UN, promising to veto any action in the Security Council if necessary. Likewise, Israeli President Shimon Peres referred to the report as “a mockery.” The US and Israel then pressured PA President Mahmoud Abbas to defer action on the report in the General Assembly (though overwhelming popular pressure later forced him to reverse that position).

Israel has gone out of its way in recent months to goad the Palestinians into confrontation, including naming two places deep in the West Bank “Israeli Heritage Sites,” sparking days of protests. Israel has also escalated its provocations around the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam. Along with the Dome of the Rock, the mosque sits inside the Haram al-Sharif, which is known as the Temple Mount to Jews. In addition to repeatedly deploying soldiers around the compound, Israel has announced that it will expand the Jewish prayer area at the Western Wall, despite a Jerusalem court’s decision that such a move would violate the status quo agreement that has governed Jerusalem’s holy sites since Israel seized the Old City in the June 1967 War.

A further escalation was the reopening of the “Hurva,” a Jewish synagogue just a few hundred meters from the al-Aqsa Mosque. With growing numbers of Jewish fundamentalists insisting that they be allowed to pray inside the Haram al-Sharif, many of whom advocate demolishing the al-Aqsa Mosque and building a third Jewish temple in its place, the reopening was universally condemned in the Muslim and Arab world. It was also reported in the Israeli press that according to a 300-year-old rabbinical prophecy, the reopening of the synagogue foretold the construction of the third temple in the place now occupied by the al-Aqsa Mosque. Yet when Palestinian leaders called for a “day of rage” in response to these provocations, the US sharply criticized them for overreacting. Yet only weeks later, Israel opened another synagogue in East Jerusalem 100 meters closer to the Haram, and Washington was silent.

Despite all this, the Israeli and American governments jointly denounce the Palestinians’ choice of which street on which to construct a new presidential palace as “wild incitement.” Are the Palestinians allowed to be outraged when Israel names streets, every inch of which lie on land that was taken from them, after the commanders that masterminded and executed the cleansing of 70 percent of Palestinian Arabs in 1948? What would the consequences be if Mahmoud Abbas started referring to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who presided over a campaign that “punished and terrorized” the 1.5 million residents of Gaza last winter as an “arch-terrorist”?

Given recent Israeli provocations, and the American response to them, the operative principle is clear: the Israelis are justly defending their democracy, while the Palestinians are savage, uncompromising terrorists. Those fighting for justice and peace in the Middle East must relentlessly confront this narrative, spreading truth and awareness, the only basis on which the conflict can finally come to an end.

Stephen Maher is an MA candidate at American University School of International Service who has lived in the West Bank, and is currently writing his Masters’ thesis, “The New Nakba: Oslo and the End of Palestine,” on the Israel-Palestine conflict. His work has appeared in Extra!, The Electronic Intifada, ZNet and other publications. His blog is www.rationalmanifesto.blogspot.com.

Zionism for Dummies

CAMERA DISTORTS THE PICTURE

Link

November 21, 2009 at 7:45 am (Associate Post, Extremism, Hasbara, Israel, Palestine, zionist harassment)

Zionist propaganda body seeks volunteers to distort Wikipedia input on Middle East

by Khalid Amayreh

A Zionist hasbara (propaganda) body based in North America is trying to recruit “volunteers” whose main job is to distort the input of the internet’s most visited websites in Israel’s favor.

Propaganda efforts are reportedly focused on popular sites such as Wikipedia, the huge on-line encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone

CAMERA, which calls itself a “committee for accuracy in Middle East reporting in America,” already has a team of dozens of paid Jewish propagandists who regularly and often scandalously distort basic data pertaining to such themes as Israeli apartheid, Zionism and its ideological similarity to Nazism, Israeli state terror and ill-treatment of Palestinians as well as other issues related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Recently CAMERA sent a circular to potential Zionist propagandists, asking them to help ensure a pro-Israeli bias in the internet.

“The idea behind Wikipedia is that if thousands of well-meaning and informed volunteers collaborate on an online encyclopedia, the result would be more accurate, up-to-date and inclusive than any print encyclopedia could possibly be.”

The circular went on: “CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to help us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors. All it takes to be an effective volunteer is a basic comfort level with computers. Call or email me, and I will train you on how to become a volunteer Wikipedia editor.”

Reputed for its notoriously mendacious and inaccurate input, CAMERA has consistently sought to exonerate the Israeli occupation forces of war crimes committed against innocent civilians especially in the Gaza Strip.

Acting as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Israeli occupation army, the group, relying on questionable and often concocted statements by Israeli army spokespersons, argued on many occasions that the widespread killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army occurred by mistake and that measures were often taken to minimize civilian casualties.

Earlier this year, the Israeli army carried out a virtually genocidal onslaught against the nearly totally unprotected Gaza Strip, killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians, including hundreds of children.

Moreover, a sustained aerial bombing by the Israeli air force destroyed more than six thousand Palestinian homes and hundreds of public buildings including more than a hundred mosques.

CAMERA, whose staff includes former Israeli Shine Beth’ officials, attacked the recently-published Goldstone report, accusing the former South African Judge, who is Jewish, of reporting “inaccurate information.”

The Goldstone report, based on meticulously authenticated data obtained first-hand testimonies from victims, accused the Israeli forces of knowingly and deliberately committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 21-day onslaught.

The data contained in the Goldstone report were corroborated by testimonies made by Israeli soldiers who took part in the winter onslaught.

Israel, apparently fearing international condemnation, had refused to cooperate with the Goldstone commission.

Neda, Marwa, Rachel, Suraideh, Abir, Henryk

Link

On June 20th 2009, Neda Agha Soltan was shot dead during the post-election protests in Iran. The protests occupied the largest news segments around the world, with analysts and commentators predicting the fall of the Iranian regime and the dawn of freedom breaking in “the axis of evil.”

Neda’s death became an icon of the Iranian opposition and a symbol for millions of people of the injustice of the Iranian regime and the defiance of the protesters. Neda’s death was put in context. It was taken from the personal realm of the death of an individual to the public realm of the just cause of a whole society.

On July 1st Marwa El Sherbini, an Egyptian researcher living in Germany, was stabbed to death 18 times inside a courtroom in the city of Dresden, in front of her 3-year-old son. She had won a verdict against a German man of Russian descent who had verbally assaulted her because of her veil. Her husband, who rushed in to save her when she was attacked in the courtroom, was shot by the police. Marwa’s death was not reported by any Western news media until protests in Egypt erupted after her burial. The reporting that followed focused on the protests; the murder was presented as the act of a “lone wolf,” thus depriving it of its context and its social meaning.

Such disproportionate coverage is not new.

Whenever powerful media Jews want a story suppressed (e.g., Suraideh Gharbieh and Abir Aramin), it gets buried in the back pages as the NY Times treated the mass murder of Jews during WW2 or simply ignored like the Ukrainian Holodomor, which was for the most part planned and carried out by Soviet Ashkenazim. Heaven help the author that wants to allude to the pattern of Jewish financial aggression over the last 140 years (e.g., Matt Taibbi).

If the story refuses to stay buried, racist Jews work hard to demonize the victim (e.g., Rachel Corrie) or to blame the non-Jewish readers (e.g., the Holocaust), and no one is allowed to discuss the context of Jewish misbehavior
German and English-language coverage of the murder of Marwa el-Sherbini has yet to mention the efforts of Jewish racists like Henryk Broder and Ralph Giordano to create an environment of fanatic Islamophobia in Germany:
Because Jewish-dominated media disinform on all topics related to Jews, public discussion on the most important public issues is misguided, vacuous or irrational to the point of threatening democracy in the USA and throughout the world. The situation will only worsen until the US government
  1. designates the IDF as a terrorist organization (as required by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution),
  2. begins arresting or purging Zionists, and
  3. starts seizing Zionist assets like major media corporations.
Posted by Joachim Martillo at 7:36 AM
%d bloggers like this: