Monday, June 22, 2009


A few weeks ago a satirical essay was written, supposedly meant to be a speech given by Ban Ki Moon to the UN General Assembly. In the ’speech’ Moon called for the expulsion of Israel from the world body.

This appeared in the press but was almost immediately removed as there was no verification that those words were actually uttered. This, however, did not stop the Zionist machine from attacking it….giving it the best type of exposure that a writer could wish for.

I posted the original piece thinking it was real, but clarified it the next day with THIS post. In the following report, the author of the original satire gives his views regarding the publicity it received….

In a corrupt world, nothing succeeds like satire!

It’s amazing how much excitement a little wit and some basic computer artistry can generate. My satire of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon as a man of principle and courage took on a life of its own as scores of websites and blogs posted it, debated it, and translated it.

Reaction ran from jaw-dropping (albeit temporary) elation from those who thought Israel finally got what it deserves, to a collective colon purge among zionists who went into Defcon 4 panic mode.

Some even wrote hysterical letters to the White House, Congress and the UN, and called for me to be charged with committing a crime. (Ain’t gonna happen!)

I don’t usually respond publicly to reader reaction but this is an exceptional case. Before I explain why, a little nomenclature clarification. Contrary to numerous assertions, especially from the Lobby, the “speech” is neither a hoax nor a forgery.

A hoax is an attempt to dupe, deceive or trick someone into believing that something unreal is in fact real. At no time did I attempt to deceive anyone. As many people noticed, I spelled-out the word SATIRE clearly in the text. In the words of Jewish Telegraph Agency reporter Ben Harris: “How could anyone have missed it?”

Nevertheless, modern political hoaxes do exist. Some of the more infamous false claims include:• Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction;

• Muslim hijackers brought down the World Trade Centre;
• Torture saves American lives; and
• Exposing Israeli atrocities is “anti-Semitic.”

In contrast, the mainstream media is riddled with hoaxes. For example, The New York?Times’ chief hoaxster Judith Miller was largely responsible for making the invasion of Iraq possible by passing off Pentagon propaganda as legitimate reportage.

Selected Media Reaction

“With the current climate of anti-Israel sentiment, undoubtedly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people will accept this forgery at face value. If it is not denied promptly and publicly, this false document, which clearly has the potential for violence, can produce dire consequences in world opinion. The integrity of the United Nations will be damaged as well.”
—Dr. Haim Katz, chairman,
International Commission for Jewish Legal Affairs (B’nai Brith)
“The alleged speech suggested that, based on a considered legal analysis of UN documents, Israel had violated the terms of its creation by the UN and its subsequent admission to the world body. As a result, Ban Ki-moon was calling the General Assembly into special session to withdraw the UN terms for the establishment of Israel and to expel Israel from the UN. While much of the criticism of the UN by pro-Israel and Jewish activists is valid, the ‘letter’ is a total fabrication—in fact, it is a signed piece of wishful thinking by an anti-Israel Canadian writer. The Jewish community needs to cease fanning flames of hatred and hostility where there is no fire.”
—Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn,
New Jersey Jewish News

“We are very concerned. This has the potential for violence. This is like a blood libel. I got this from very serious friends of mine.”
—Jan Sokolovsky, executive director,
International Commission for Jewish Legal Affairs
“Felton claimed that he had no intention to deceive with the ‘speech’ and that he made it clear in the document that it was a joke.… Six paragraphs in, the first letter of the first word of the first sentence, an ‘S’, was featured in bold. A few lines later, yes there it was, an “A”, also in bold. Then a ‘T’, an ‘I’, an ‘R’, and an ‘E’—each of them separated from the others by a few sentences, at most, and in bold. Felton had spelled out ‘SATIRE.’ How could anyone have missed it?”
—Ben Harris, Jewish Telegraph Agency

“To prevent the allegations contained in the SG’s alleged speech about Israel’s conditional membership from snow-balling, an urgent widely publicized clarification is needed from the UN and I respectfully suggest that in your capacity as Director of the Task Force against Hate of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, at the United Nations, you take up this matter at top level.”
—Letter by Maurice Ostroff, founding member, International Council of Hasbara Volunteers, to Mark Weitzman
There were, however, some valid points in the mock speech that I wish to address… United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 requires that Israel compensate Arabs for all property destroyed or confiscated by Israel. Israel’s membership in the United Nations as set forth in UN General Assembly Resolution 273 specifically requires Israel to comply with Resolution 194. It must be pointed out that Resolution 194 also grants the Palestinians the Right of Return to their homeland. Sixty years after its admission to the World Body, all of the above resolutions have been violated or ignored, yet Israel remains a member in good standing of the United Nations.
In essence, my satire was designed to expose a hoax—the hoax of Israel being a legitimate member of the United Nations. For all of its frothing denunciations, the Lobby has not made any attempt to refute the evidence.

The charge of forgery refers to my homemade pdf replica of a UN News webpage containing the “official” transcript of the speech. To qualify as a forgery my webpage would have to be indistinguishable, or nearly indistinguish-able, from the real thing. As certain observant people noted:

• Ban Ki-Moon did not address the General Assembly on the day in question;
• None of the links worked; and
• My pdf did not appear on the official UN website or anywhere in the mainstream press.

There was no attempt to deceive, unlike the case of the infamous forged Niger documents that George W. Bush held up as “proof” that Saddam Hussein’s was buying uranium.

The fact that many readers pro and con were impressed by the seeming authenticity of my mock-up is nevertheless gratifying. After all, what’s the point of doing satire if it isn’t believable?

I think the most significant effect of my satire is how it generated its own reality, especially after some sites posted it, then took it down when they could not confirm its authenticity. The fact of my satire appearing and then disappearing spawned speculation that it was true and that it had been censored for political reasons.

According to a poster on “I gotta tell you, you found a gem, and they stole it back. I’m sure it will be redacted or cosmetically made more PC; and people will call you a liar for ever having relayed the find. Too bad really. Every now and again, I like to pretend there's hope. Then AIPAC strikes. And the dance begins all over again.”

The French site even translated my satire with the added heading “censored by the press,” but also with a read-at-you-own-risk caveat. The idea that AIPAC or other any other arm of Zionism Inc. could censor the media so easily clearly comes as no surprise, which made what “I” had to say that much more believable.

In response to the satire, and the climate of suspicion it engendered, one zionist “praised” it as a highly successful “false meme”—a form of disinformation as part of cognitive warfare against Israel. The irony, which is lost on this individual, is that the entire history of Israel is a false meme, and that my satire, for all of its inventiveness, was truthful.

Similarly Maurice Ostroff founding member of Hasbara, an organization dedicated to spewing apologetics for Israel, paid me the highest compliment by demanding the UN “clarify”(!) its position about Israel “to prevent the allegations contained in the SG’s alleged speech about Israel’s conditional membership from snow-balling.”

Not only does Ostroff recognize the power of the allegations, which are 100% true, but he also lends credence to those who charge that Jews control the media, or at least exercise an undue influence. He also shows just how easily the myth of Israel can be exploded. If one writer can do so much damage, just how sustainable is Israel’s position?!

All this backhanded praise does is show that the satire was a runaway success, and so the success had to be discredited.

The third reaction to the satire concerns the debate it engendered. Numerous blogs carried on prolonged discussions about UN General Assembly resolutions 194 and 273, complete with excerpts. This true, uncensored discussion about the history of zionist treachery and fraud reached thousands, if not millions, of people, if the Lobby’s latest screech owl Dr. Haim Katz is anything to go by.

If I had written this piece as a straight column, it would not have had nearly the same impact. It’s easy, and I suspect commonplace, to judge a story by its source, rather than its message.

We live in irrational times where truth is a commodity defined by the government and propagated by a compliant, corrupt media. Those who dissent from the prescribed verities are marginalized and persecuted, not because they are wrong but because they are right. In such a society, satire is the best source of truth, and the satirist is a dangerous man.

Source: Canadian Arab News

Hate Crime Crisis Shall not be Wasted

As governments tend to do in their never-quenched thirst for more programs and more power, this one is keen to earn political capital following some recent, highly-publicized shootings. US Attorney General Eric Holder, though working for a violent political organization, is abhorred by what he calls “murder, or the threat of violence, masquerading as political activism.”

Eric_HolderAs am I, Mr. Holder, but how does this mesh with your role as an official of the US government? What power does government have to enforce its edicts upon us but for the threat of violence? And what of all the violence committed against Americans by your Department of Justice and state and local law enforcement agencies? The recent shootings at the Holocaust Museum, an abortion clinic and a church pale in comparison to what law enforcement agents habitually do. Don’t believe me? Get a YouTube account.

Holder went on to say “So let me be clear, the Justice Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect the rights ensured under our Constitution.” US Representative Ron Paul (R – TX), however, disagrees with Holder on this statement. Paul said in 2007 that federal hate crimes laws “not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states.”

The esteemed Attorney General says that the violence “reminds us of the potential threat posed by violent extremists and the tragedy that ensues when reasoned discourse is replaced by armed confrontation.” Is this not the modus operandi of the government, though? If I make reasoned arguments against the state’s claims on my life I either acquiesce or eventually I find myself on the losing end of an armed confrontation. There is a gun in the room, and I am not the one holding it.

Source: The Free Agents Network

Report Debunking UN's Global Warming Alarmism is Backed by 31,478 U.S. Scientists

New report authored by two esteemed weather scientists challenges AGW theory

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has issued a rebuttal to the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change. The report challenges the theory that man somehow has played a major role in changing the global climate, and also challenges the need to adopt painful and costly measures to combat this perceived threat, such as giving up meat in our diets.

Where many in the AGW community would have you believe that there is a consensus over global warming theory, the reports showcases the ongoing debate on the topic and support for alternative theories. Over 31,478 American scientists signed a petition in the appendix citing “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate."

Unlike the UN's IPCC, which is chaired by Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian economist with no formal climatology training, the NIPCC is headed by two esteemed climatologists, each with a large body of work in the field.

The first coauthor of the report is Dr. S. Fred Singer, a former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Dr. Singer received a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his outstanding work in the field. In the 1980s he continued to study the Earth's climate as the vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA). He also taught as a professor at University of Virginia.

Dr. Craig D. Idso also coauthored the report. Dr. Idso has a Ph.D in geography from Arizona State University. He has extensively studied the climate as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and has published papers in the field of climatology. He also lectured on Meteorology at Arizona State University. His specialties include studying the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations.

Among the conclusions reached by these esteemed researchers were that:

  • Climate models suffer from numerous deficiencies and shortcomings that could alter even the very sign (plus or minus, warming or cooling) of earth’s projected temperature response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations.
  • The model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth--especially for a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 level--is much too large, and feedbacks in the climate system reduce it to values that are an order of magnitude smaller than what the IPCC employs.
  • Real-world observations do not support the IPCC’s claim that current trends in climate and weather are “unprecedented” and, therefore, the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
  • The IPCC overlooks or downplays the many benefits to agriculture and forestry that will be accrued from the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.
  • There is no evidence that CO2-induced increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions, either on land or in the world’s oceans.
  • There is no evidence that CO2-induced global warming is or will be responsible for increases in the incidence of human diseases or the number of lives lost to extreme thermal conditions.

The pair, along with the 31,478 scientists backing their assertions, are urging lawmakers worldwide to carefully consider the body of evidence against AGW theory and lack of evidence in support of AGW theory. Cutting carbon emissions by a mere 15 percent is estimated to cost $1,600 per U.S. citizen yearly and leave the nation $9.4 trillian poorer. Totally forgoing carbon emissions could be extrapolated to cost the average citizen over $10,500 USD yearly. And Dr. Idso and Dr. Singer provide compelling evidence that this would be a pointless and foolhardy sacrifice as it would have virtually no affect on the climate.

Source: Daily Tech

Shut Up about Iran

The U.S. government’s tainted record there demands it.

by Sheldon Richman, June 19, 2009

Here’s some advice for Barack Obama, John McCain, and any other U.S. politician who feels the urge to issue a declaration about the election in Iran: Shut up.

True, Obama has said he does not wish to interfere in the Iranian election. Others, such John “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran” McCain, have no such compunction. But any statement at all — even a statement about not making a statement — is a mistake. The record of the U.S. government in Iran over the last half-century is so tainted that it would be better for all officials to just keep quiet.

The results of the presidential election certainly suggest a fix. But that is for the Iranians to work out.

For the last few years, the U.S. “military option” has been prominently “on the table” when it comes to Iran. The U.S. government’s closest ally in the Middle East, Israel — especially under the new hard-line prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu — clearly would like to see Iran attacked for having the nerve to develop nuclear technology. U.S. intelligence says Iran gave up a weapons program long ago — before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president — but Israel apparently won’t tolerate an Iran even with only a civilian nuclear-power industry. Apparently the thought of another country’s challenging Israel’s 40-year nuclear-weapons monopoly in the Middle East — and thus being able to deter aggressive military action — is intolerable. (Ahmadinejad, incidentally, has no military authority under Iranian law.)

The U.S. government, then, can hardly be an unbiased observer of Iran’s political process. Besides, it is well known that U.S. governments have routinely meddled in elections throughout the world, overtly and covertly. The National Endowment for Democracy, a government-funded organization, is just the most obvious way that American officials interfere. (Remember how outraged people were in the Clinton years when they thought the Chinese had funneled money into the U.S. electoral system?)

Most of all, the U.S. government needs to keep silent because of 1953. That was the year the CIA — that model of openness and commitment to democracy — drove an elected, secular Iranian prime minister from office in order to restore to power the brutal monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. For the next quarter century, the shah ruled with an iron fist — secret police, torture, the works. “Enlightened” Americans used to say that he was “dragging his people kicking and screaming into the twentieth century.” He was a close friend of American presidents and Israeli prime ministers, and a main instigator of high oil prices. With all that oil money, he could easily buy the latest weapons made by American contractors, keeping them and his American political sponsors happy. He was “our” man in one of the world’s hotspots.

It was a sweet deal for everyone — except average Americans and Iranians. In 1979 the Iranians had had enough and, led by the charismatic ayatollah, Ruhollah Khomeini, they again drove the shah from power — this time for good — in the Islamic revolution that has reigned in Iran ever since. The U.S. government’s crimes against Iran were not forgotten, as the U.S. embassy was seized and the personnel held hostage for 444 days. When the hostage crisis began, President Jimmy Carter dismissed the connection to 1953, claiming that it was “ancient history.” It is from such utterances that the term “ugly American” was born.

What was ancient to Carter and unknown to most Americans was fresh in the minds of Iranians. Middle-class Iranians may have a high regard for the American people and our way of life, but that does not mean they welcome intervention.

In Cairo, Obama acknowledged that history. Good. However, acknowledgement is not enough. Deeds must match regrets — if that’s what he feels — about 1953. The U.S. government must forswear intervention, take the military option off the table — and mean it.

The Obama administration says the United States has two concerns regarding Iran: its support for terrorism in the Middle East and its nuclear ambitions. Neither concerns the American people. Even if Iran builds a weapon, the leaders there are not suicidal. And the way for the United States to safeguard against terrorism is to follow a noninterventionist foreign policy. U.S. troops can’t be attacked in the Middle East if they aren’t there. Someone as bright as Obama ought to realize that.

Source: The Future of Freedom Foundation

Discussion of the Holocaust to be banned?

The recent tragic death of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, allegedly killed by an individual said to be a “Holocaust denier” is now being touted as a reason to institute laws in the United States similar to those laws outlawing so-called “Holocaust denial” in force in 14 countries, mostly in Western Europe.

However, long-standing evidence suggests that those who advocate such measures in the United States do not intend to directly confront the issue of “Holocaust denial” in pushing such legislation. Rather, they intend to deal with the issue through an insidious tactical “back door” approach.

The scheme has been in the works for a long time and is not to be confused with the long-standing drive (once again before Congress) to set up a federal “hate crimes” bureaucracy.

Here’s the story that’s not been reported anywhere else: On June 12, the conservative Washington Times—which regularly touts the globalist and Zionist agenda—featured a headline story announcing that “Debate arises on legality of Holocaust denial,” as a consequence of what happened at the Holocaust Museum, adding fuel to the fire.

So now the propaganda drive for legislation targeting not just “Holocaust denial” but all manner of political freedom of expression is being rejuvenated.

Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, the wealthy American founder of the Israel Project, one of many well-funded Jewish lobby operations, was quoted in the Washington Times article as saying that public distribution of so-called “hate literature” as well as “hate” on public access cable should be outlawed.

And although the Times quoted officials from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith as saying the ADL does not advocate laws criminalizing “Holocaust denial” in America, the fact is that for more than 20 years the ADL has been in the forefront of a coordinated effort to pave the way for legislation designed to suppress speech in the U.S. the ADL considers dangerous to its agenda.

The ADL’s plan is to outlaw what it called “group defamation” that could be considered hurtful against certain specifically identifiable groups of people and thus potentially spark violence against them. In fact, the ADL’s contention is that hurtful language actually constitutes “violence” in and of itself.

In other words, if an individual criticized the actions of the state of Israel for its recent bloody incursion into Gaza, this could be considered offensive by American Jewish supporters of Israel and, in turn, those criticisms of Israel could cause other Americans to become angry at the supporters of Israel. As a consequence of this, it is said, violence could occur.

Or, for example, if someone raised questions about the number of Jews who died in Europe during the Holocaust and suggested that the numbers had been inflated by Jewish groups for political benefit and financial profit—this is considered a form of “Holocaust denial” in Europe today—Jewish people could be “hurt” because their integrity was being questioned and it might cause others to think badly of them.

If this sounds unlikely or extraordinary, consider the documented record of the ADL in this regard.

In 1988 at Hofstra University in New York, the ADL conducted a three-day legal symposium entitled “Group Defamation and Freedom of Speech: The Relationship Between Language and Violence.” The forum concluded with a call for passage of a law to ban what was described as “hate literature” by so-called “extremists.”

The opinions expressed by the featured speakers at the ADL conclave advocating a ban on hate literature centered around two ideas:

That words, written or spoken, in and of themselves, constitute violence. (For example, one need only call someone a “bad” name without threatening any physical action to perform an act of violence.)

That words, written or spoken, take on a certain power that creates a reality for the target or victim of these words. (For example, by calling someone a “dirty rotten bum,” he will become one.)

In his opening remarks, Hofstra law professor Monroe Freedman said that trying to defend free speech while trying to protect minorities against those who “defame” them is a “paradox of Constitutional democracy.”

According to Freedman:

Group defamation can create a social climate that is receptive to and encourages hatred and oppression. If a minority group can be made to appear less than human, deserving of punishment, or a threat to the general community, oppression of that minority is a likely consequence.

We know also that language itself can hurt, that there are words that, by their very utterance, inflict injury. . . .When the message is violent, language can itself be violence.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) spoke of the “psychic pain” inflicted by language. Another speaker, self-described “Holocaust survivor” Elie Wiesel, injected his opinion that those engaging in group defamation should be “fought” and “dealt with harshly.”

The conference featured a moot court argument of the winning submission of a competition among law students around the nation to write a model statute that could be used to prosecute those who engage in so-called “group defamation.”

The first prize winner was a model statute defining group defamation as:

Any oral, written or symbolic speech, published with malice, that debases, degrades or calls into question the loyalties, abilities or integrity of members of a group based on a characteristic that [is] allegedly common to the members of that group, or that by its very utterance inflicts injury upon members of a group, or that promotes animosity against a group.

A “group” was defined as “an aggregation of people identified by a common race, religion, national origin, ethnicity or gender, or based upon heterosexuality or homosexuality.”

Under the proposed statute, an agency would be established to monitor acts of group defamation; assess the impact of any speech that defames a group; and counteract the actually and potentially adverse effects of that speech. That agency would also review all films and movies before they could be shown and, if deemed to be offensive, ban public viewing.

In a similar vein, on November 2, 1995, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)—now a powerful U.S. senator—joined with the aforementioned Congressman Conyers in promoting legislation of the character proposed at the ADL conference. The Schumer measure, H.R. 2580, was deceptively called “The Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act.”

A longtime ADL spokesman in Congress, Schumer proposed to outlaw discussion of what he called “baseless conspiracy theories regarding the government” that he said endangered public order. Already he was known as the leading congressional enemy of the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners. Schumer’s new target—the First Amendment—would have been scrapped had the bill been passed.

Source: Under The Radar Media

N.Y. lawmaker says Holocaust memorial only for Jews

NEW YORK (JTA) -- A New York state assemblyman said a Brooklyn Holocaust memorial should only be for Jews.

Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn Democrat, said the memorial should not recognize the other victims of the Nazis, the New York Post reported. The memorial in the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood was erected by the City of New York.

"These people are not in the same category as Jewish people with regards to the Holocaust," said Hikind, an Orthodox Jew whose district includes the heavily Chasidic section Borough Park. "It is so vastly different. You cannot compare political prisoners with Jewish victims."

Along with 6 million Jewish victims, millions of gays, disabled people and Roma also were persecuted by the Nazis -- a fact that several city officials played up in their defense of a plan to recognize those groups at the memorial.

"It wasn't only the Jews that were massacred," said the city's Jewish mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

"There's no doubt that most of the atrocities at the Holocaust were done upon Jewish people," said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. "But it goes against history and their memory to not commemorate all groups that were persecuted by the Nazis."

Hikind, who speaks out frequently on Jewish issues, made the comments at a news conference attended by his 89-year-old mother, Frieda, a survivor of Auschwitz.

Source: Jewish Telegraph Agency

The Four Reasons the Mainstream Media Is Worthless

by George Washington

There are four reasons that the mainstream media is worthless.

1. Self-Censorship by Journalists

Initially, there is tremendous self-censorship by journalists.

For example, several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":
"there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples' necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.... And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.

"What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of self-censorship."

Keith Olbermann agreed that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:

"You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble .... You cannot say: By the way, there's something wrong with our .... system".

As former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in 2006:

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . .

There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.

If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.

I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter - whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.

And Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski wrote:

I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.
(page 26).

2. Censorship by Higher-Ups

If journalists do want to speak out about an issue, they also are subject to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story.

The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said:
"All of the institutions we thought would protect us -- particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress -- they have failed. The courts . . . the jury's not in yet on the courts. So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn't. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that's the most glaring....

Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?

[Long pause] You'd have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You'd actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn't think you could control. And they're not going to do that."

In fact many journalists are warning that the true story is not being reported. See this announcement and this talk.

And a series of interviews with award-winning journalists also documents censorship of certain stories by media editors and owners (and see these samples).

There are many reasons for censorship by media higher-ups.

One is money.

The media has a strong monetary interest to avoid controversial topics in general. It has always been true that advertisers discourage stories which challenge corporate power. Indeed, a 2003 survey reveals that 35% of reporters and news executives themselves admitted that journalists avoid newsworthy stories if “the story would be embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization’s owners or parent company.”

In addition, the government has allowed tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves during the past decade. The large media players stand to gain billions of dollars in profits if the Obama administration continues to allow monopoly ownership of the airwaves by a handful of players. The media giants know who butters their bread. So there is a spoken or tacit agreement: if the media cover the administration in a favorable light, the MSM will continue to be the receiver of the government's goodies.

3. Drumming Up Support for War

In addition, the owners of American media companies have long actively played a part in drumming up support for war.

It is painfully obvious that the large news outlets studiously avoided any real criticism of the government's claims in the run up to the Iraq war. It is painfully obvious that the large American media companies acted as lapdogs and stenographers for the government's war agenda.

Veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:

"the [mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked."

And as NBC News' David Gregory (later promoted to host Meet the Press) said:

"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up [in the run-up to the war] and say 'this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this,' that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role"
But this is nothing new. In fact, the large media companies have drummed up support for all previous wars.

For example, Hearst helped drum up support for the Spanish-American War.

And an official summary of America's overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Iran in the 1950's states, "In cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq." (page x)

The mainstream media also may have played footsie with the U.S. government right before Pearl Harbor. Specifically, a highly-praised historian (Bob Stineet) argues that the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending Pearl Harbor attack BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361) .

And the military-media alliance has continued without a break (as a highly-respected journalist says, "viewers may be taken aback to see the grotesque extent to which US presidents and American news media have jointly shouldered key propaganda chores for war launches during the last five decades.")

As the mainstream British paper, the Independent, writes:

There is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it. The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news.
The article in the Independent discusses the use of "black propaganda" by the U.S. government, which is then parroted by the media without analysis; for example, the government forged a letter from al Zarqawi to the "inner circle" of al-Qa'ida's leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war, which was then publicized without question by the media..

So why has the American press has consistenly served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war?

One of of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors in the world -- which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos).

Another seems to be an unspoken rule that the media will not criticize the government's imperial war agenda.

And the media support isn't just for war: it is also for various other shenanigans by the powerful. For example, a BBC documentarysdocuments:

There was "a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."
Moreover, "the tycoons told the general who they asked to carry out the coup that the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers." See also this book.

Have you ever heard of this scheme before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?

4. Censorship by the Government

Finally, as if the media's own interest in promoting war is not strong enough, the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail if they've been too critical. The media companies have felt great pressure from the government to kill any real questioning of the endless wars.

For example, Dan Rather said, regarding American media, "What you have is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states".

Tom Brokaw said "all wars are based on propaganda.

And the head of CNN said:

"there was 'almost a patriotism police' after 9/11 and when the network showed [things critical of the administration's policies] it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and "big people in corporations were calling up and saying, 'You're being anti-American here.'"
Indeed, former military analyst and famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:
Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"].

As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."

"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.

* * *

"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'"

Of course, if the stick approach doesn't work, the government can always just pay off reporters to spread disinformation. Indeed, an expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations (the expert has an impressive background).

And famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists. See also this New York Times piece, this essay by the Independent, this speech by one of the premier writers on journalism, and this and this roundup.

Indeed, in the final analysis, the main reason today that the media giants will not cover the real stories or question the government's actions or policies in any meaningful way is that we live in a country that is not all that free (see point number 6). Mussolini said that fascism is the blending of the government and corporate interests, and the American government and mainstream media have in fact been blended together to an unprecedented degree.

Source: OpEdNews

'Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're Green.' --US Hypocrisy Toward Iran

'Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're Green.' --US Hypocrisy Toward Iran By Lori Price,

The world's biggest hypocrite and meddlesome nosy parker, the United States, has outdone itself with its reaction to the post-election events in Iran. At least five glaring 'grand hypocrisy' categories have emerged, with more likely on the way. What other country -- having just endured eight years of dictatorship as the result of two stolen elections -- could actually spew outrage over... another nation's 'stolen election?' Gag me with a green chainsaw.

Grand hypocrisy #1: Obama Presses Iran to Halt 'Violence Against Own People,' Forgetting US 'Violence Against Own People'

Police Unleash Force On Rally in Tehran --Obama, in Boldest Terms Yet, Presses Iran to Halt Violence Against Own People (The Washington Post) 21 Jun 2009 Fiery chaos broke out in downtown Tehran on Saturday as security forces blocked streets and used tear gas, water cannons and batons to break up a demonstration against the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Security forces were seen firing warning shots into the air, but there were also unconfirmed reports that several people were hit by gunfire. President Obama, in his strongest comments to date on a political standoff that has paralyzed Iran for a week, urged the Iranian government "to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people."

'Violence and unjust actions against its own people.' How undemocratic of the government of Iran!

But, looky here! Use of Force Against RNC Protesters "Disproportionate," Charges Amnesty International (Amnesty International, London) 05 Sep 2008 Amnesty International is concerned by allegations of excessive use of force and mass arrests by police at demonstrations in St. Paul, Minnesota during the Republican National Convention (RNC) from September 1-4, 2008. The human rights organization is calling on the city and county authorities to ensure that all allegations of ill-treatment and other abuses are impartially investigated, with a review of police tactics and weapons in the policing of demonstrations.

And here! Democracy Now! Host and Producers Arrested at Republican Convention (The Washington Post) 01 Sep 2008 Democracy Now! radio host Amy Goodman and two producers were arrested while covering demonstrations at the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn. Goodman was released after being held for over three hours, but is still waiting to hear when Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar would be released... "They seriously manhandled me and handcuffed my hands behind my back. The top ID [at the convention] is to get on the floor and the Secret Service ripped that off me. I had my Democracy Now! ID too. I was clearly a reporter." Goodman, who was released after being charged with a misdemeanor, said that Salazar had been hurt in the face, while Kouddous had been thrown up against a wall and hurt his elbow. "Nicole told me that as they moved in on three sides, she asked them 'How do I get away from this?' and they jumped on her." Both Kouddous and Salazar could be held for up to 36 hours. "One of the police kept shouting at me 'Shut up, shut up," she said. "It was extremely threatening."

Raytheon ADS – A Pain ray gun to keep us in line (Newlaunches) 26 Jun 2008 Controlling an angry mob is not the task of any sane individual; sometimes it requires raw brute force. So far the use of tear gas and water canons has eased an awkward riot situation. There are some laser weapons, also called dazzlers, which are handheld devices that can temporarily blind criminals, while kinetic technologies include bean-bag rounds, water cannons and even sponge grenades filled with powdered irritant chemicals. According to a report by its Scientific Development Branch a new type of pain ray gun or Active denial system (ADS) has been developed which projects microwave-like radiation for distances of more than 500 yards, creating an excruciating and full-body burning sensation in anyone caught in its beam. The millimeter-wave rays penetrate skin to a depth of about 1/64in but cause no permanent damage, according to Raytheon, the system's US-based maker. Prototypes of the weapon, called Silent Guardian, weighed about three tons and were mounted on trucks. The Scientific Development Branch, based in Sandridge in Hertfordshire, has been looking at a portable version of the ADS being developed by Raytheon for the US National Institute of Justice.

I don't see the Raytheon pain ray gun tweets - where are they? Can you imagine what the Faux News trolls would say if Iran was testing a pain ray gun for use on 'angry mobs?'

Also, where was Barack Obama's condemnation of police violence in Minnesota, the wall-to-wall PentaPost coverage, CNN's insipid 'iReports' and the millions of green tweets regarding the US crackdown on protesters in the US?

Grand hypocrisy #2: US condemns Iran for disallowing protests

The US media is outraged -- I tell you -- outraged, that Iran is forbidding protests!

Bush: Clap Me Or No EU Speech ( March 2003 George Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation. A source close to negotiations said last night: "President [sic] Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address. His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling." Mr Bush's every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters.

Yes, and if you disagree with "stage-management" at Dictator Bush's appearances, you are herded into a "First Amendment Zone," and threatened with a felony charge. See Michael Rectenwald's account of such an experience: "Neville Island on Labor Day 2002: First Amendment Behind Bars" 02 Sep 2002.

Grand hypocrisy #3: US loves riots and civil upheaval over stolen elections... as long as there's no civil upheavals and riots over *US* stolen elections!

Iran finds US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots (Press TV) 21 Jun 2009 The terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) has reportedly played a major role in intensifying the recent wave of street violence in Iran. Iranian security officials reported Saturday that they have identified and arrested a large number of MKO members who were involved in recent riots in Iran's capital. According to the security officials, the arrested members had confessed that they were extensively trained in Iraq's camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country.

Qashqavi: VOA, BBC guiding unrest in Iran (Press TV) 21 Jun 2009 Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Qashqavi pins the blame for the recent post-election turmoil across the country on US and British media outlets. "Voice of America (VOA) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) are state-funded channels and not privately-run. Their budgets are ratified in the US Congress, as well as the British Parliament. The two channels serve as mouthpieces of their respective governments," Qashqavi stated on Saturday. He noted that the two news outlets seek to stir up ethnic discord across Iran in the hope of fomenting the country's disintegration.

Suicide bombing leaves 3 injured in Tehran (Press TV) 20 Jun 2009 A terrorist bombing attack has targeted the mausoleum of Imam Khomeini in southern Tehran, wounding three pilgrims at the site. The suicide bomber himself was killed in the blast that rocked the northern entrance of the shrine of the founder of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini, on Saturday, IRNA reported.

See: US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran --America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the government. 25 Feb 2007 CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions. The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods terrorists in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime. In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials... Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph. His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

If Iran 'dealt with movements that resorted to terrorist methods' against the US, the US would have declared war on Iran in what, five pico-seconds? And, LieberBush/Boner (Boehner) would be yelping for Obama's impeachment because five pico-seconds would not be quick enough.

Grand hypocrisy #4: A paucity of US media coverage of protests in other countries

Iraqi Oil Minister accused of mother of all sell-outs --To public fury, the country is handing over control of its fields to foreign companies ( 18 Jun 2009 Furious protests threaten to undermine the Iraqi government's controversial plan to give international oil companies a stake in its giant oilfields in a desperate effort to raise declining oil production and revenues. In less than two weeks, on 29 and 30 June, the Iraqi Oil Minister, Hussain Shahristani, will award service contracts to the world's largest oil companies to develop six of Iraq's largest oil-producing fields over 20 to 25 years... Iraqis are wary of the involvement of foreign oil companies in raising production in super giant fields like Kirkuk and Bai Hassan in the north and Rumaila, Zubair and West Qurna in the south. They suspect the 2003 US invasion was ultimately aimed at securing Western control of their oil wealth. The nationalisation of the Iraqi oil industry by Saddam Hussein in 1972 remains popular and the rebellion against the service contracts has been gathering pace all this week.

Tribesmen protest US drone attacks (Press TV) 19 Jun 2009 Hundreds of local tribesmen in Pakistan's South Waziristan Agency are protesting US drone attacks on their areas. Soon after the Friday prayers, the tribesmen and elders of the Waziristan tribes staged a large protest rally in Wana city, the main town of South Waziristan Agency and marched in strong condemnation of the unmanned aircraft attacks, terming it an assault on Pakistan's sovereignty, a Press TV correspondent reported late on Friday.

Notice that the US media does not cover such protests -- only dissent in Iran.

Grand hypocrisy #5: The condemnation of Iran for its 'stolen election.' Oh, my God.

Election watchdog to recount 10% of votes (Press TV) 20 Jun 2009 Iran's Guardian Council says it is ready to recount a random 10 percent of the ballot boxes in the last Friday's presidential election. "Although the Guardian Council is not legally obliged ... we are ready to recount 10 percent of the (ballot) boxes randomly in the presence of representatives of the candidates," the electoral watchdog's spokesman, Abbas-Ali Kadkhodayi said on Saturday.

But yet: In the US, a recount was stopped by the Supreme Court so that they could give the presidency to George W. Bush. The US media was -- and has been -- silent in reporting the 2000 and 2004 GOP coup d'etats. At CLG, we have not been silent.

Sarkozy says Iran election a 'fraud' (Press TV) 17 Jun 2009 As the landslide victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran's disputed election provoked unrest, French President Nicolas Sarkozy denounces the result of Friday's vote as a "fraud." "The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction," Sarkozy said Tuesday. "It is a tragedy, but it is not negative to have a real-opinion movement that tries to break its chains."

And, where was Sarkozy when Bush bin Laden stole *two* presidential 'elections' in the US? Oh, that's right. Sarkozy -- and 99% of the US media -- were burrowing as deep as possible up Bush's butt.

The double standard by and for the US corporate-run media is unbearable and intolerable.

Incidentally, Iran is serving as a Weapon of Mass Distraction for this nugget:

Poll: 72 percent want government-administered insurance plan to compete with private sector --85 percent want major healthcare reforms (Reuters) 20 Jun 2009 Americans strongly support fundamental changes to the healthcare system and a move to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Saturday. The Times/CBS poll found seventy-two percent of those questioned said they backed a government-administered insurance plan similar to Medicare for those under 65 that would compete for customers with the private sector.

And this:

Senate Approves War Funding Bill After Obama Presses Democrats --At Obama's behest, the bill includes $7.7 billion to prepare for pandemic flu. --Congress to give Mexico an additional $420 million this year to buy helicopters, surveillance aircraft and computers for police (The Washington Post) 19 Jun 2009 A war funding bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly yesterday, but the 91 to 5 vote came after a fractured process that included objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, and required President Obama to intervene repeatedly to lobby members of his own party for his foreign policy 'vision.' The final version of the $105.9 billion bill provides funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30.

Yes, due to the US media's obsession with the internal strife in Iran, we're not talking about health care any more. Health care, the still-tanked economy, the CIA-suppressed torture documents and detainee (prisoner) abuse (torture) photos, or the $106 billion we just forked over to fund Obusha's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for another few months.
Now *that's* mission accomplished.

Source: Citizens For Legitimate Government


A new vegan bar opened last week in Tel Aviv that bans Israel Defense Forces soldiers in uniform and boycotts products made in West Bank settlements.

The Rogatka - "slingshot" - bar was opened by an "anarchist collective" who once ran the Salon Mazal bar; it is located on Yitzhak Sadeh street in central Tel Aviv.

The new ideologically-devoted bar will not seek to make a profit, and the founders say they hope it will bring together left-wing activists, environmentalists, and other fellow travelers, under the banner of cheap drinks and fair trade products.

The bar's ban on soldiers in uniform and the carrying of weapons, along with its boycott on products made in the settlements, derive from what employees see as the connection between all forms of oppression, from the slaughter of animals to sexism to occupation.

"We can't hold views against discrimination and oppression, while at the same time support the infrastructure that exploits human beings and other animals," said Adi Vinter, one of the bar's founders.

"We wanted to show it's possible and even worthwhile to live differently," Vinter added.

Source: Haaretz News Jerusalem


The name Hedy Epstein is a household word among those of us involved in the Palestinian cause. She is a Jewish woman, a holocaust survivor, yet despite her age being 84 she has tirelessly lived the mantra of ‘Never Again’….. TO ANYONE!

The following report shows her determination to continue the struggle despite a personal setback….. we need thousands more like Hedy.

Guest speaker hurt in assault

By Janese Heavin

An “inspirational” speaker for 15 years at the Missouri Scholars Academy was attacked this week after visiting the Columbia camp.

Hedy Epstein: Holocaust survivor

Hedy Epstein, an 84-year-old Holocaust survivor, was walking to her home from a Metrolink station in St. Louis on Wednesday when someone pushed her hard from behind. She fell to the ground and lay in a state of shock, bleeding profusely from her chin.

The attack occurred so quickly, Epstein said, that she thought she saw a man running but can’t remember what he looked like. She forced herself to get home and called a friend when the bleeding would not stop. At the hospital, doctors determined an artery had been nicked.

The attack might not have been random.

Epstein is part of a movement opposed to Israel’s treatment of Gaza and has received threatening messages.

After she gave a television interview earlier this year, someone left a phone message telling Epstein she should be ashamed of herself. In the message, the caller threatened to visit St. Louis and “give you a piece of my mind and spit on your ugly face. … We will find a way to deal with protesters of your type.”

Epstein has since given the transcribed message to police.

On Thursday, Epstein said she received an e-mail from someone asking whether she is trying to help free the Israeli soldier abducted by Palestinians more than two years ago. “Is there a connection” between the attack and e-mail? she asked. “It’s not obvious, but there might be.”

Her injuries have forced Epstein to cancel a planned trip to Gaza this month, but she’s planning another trip there in August. She said she won’t let the threats or her attack stop her.

After all, Epstein has experienced worse.

She was 8 when Adolf Hitler came to power while she and her family were living in Germany. Five years later, Epstein was taken to England with 500 other Jewish children.

From a foster home, she continued to correspond with her parents until 1942, when she received back-to-back letters from them. Though written separately, both her father and mother told her they were going to an “undisclosed location” and that it would be a long time before she would hear from them again.

Years later, Epstein found out what they meant: Both had been sent to the Auschwitz death camp in Poland. “I didn’t know that at the time,” she said. “So when my parents said it may be a long time, I wanted to know how long. I wanted so much to be reunited.”

Hearing that story during the Missouri Scholars Academy this week hit home for Grace Sparapani, a scholar from Nixa. “I can’t imagine not seeing your parents again,” she said. “It really made me appreciate mine more.”

Epstein is “absolutely amazing,” Grace added. “I can’t even imagine how much courage it takes to talk about that … What she’s doing is really brave.”

The scholars made a “Get Well” card to send to Epstein, said Chris Young, a spokesman for the camp. “Hedy’s a very inspiring individual,” he said. “The scholars wanted to do something to show her that they care for her.”

The attack might have caused her body to bruise, but it did little to injure her spirit. She said she’s as determined as ever to continue opposition efforts against the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.

“I know what it means to be discriminated against and to suffer,” she said. “I care profoundly about issues of justice and fairness and peace. And I care about people — not just Jewish people. I care about everybody.”

Source: Columbia Daily Tribune

What Is A Bank President Doing On The Warren Commission

Source: You Tube

A Colonizing Project Built On Lies

Source: Atheo News

M. Shahid Alam
April 2002
Excerpt from Challenging the New Orientalism

The chief moral asset of the Zionists in their makeover of Israel was the Holocaust. This had created a vast fund of sympathy born of guilt. The Zionists conserved this sympathy capital through endless commemoration - in movies, media and museums. Better yet they augmented the Holocaust capital by arguing that Jews had suffered horrors that were unique in history. Never before had a people been targeted for total extermination; never before had they faced death through incineration. Fortified with the shield of Holocaust capital and the sword of uniqueness, the Zionists have argued that their actions should be exempt from the moral scrutiny of concerned world citizens. They should be given a free pass.

The Holocaust capital placed Israel beyond critique. First, Israel was equated with Jews. Second, Jews were equated with survivors of the Holocaust. Once these equations were established, Israel became the object of all the natural sympathy that belonged to the Holocaust survivors. As the haven, the last refuge of the world's super victims, Israel was now above reproach. It followed that anyone that dared to call Israel to account could only be an anti-Semite. This was a powerful tactic.

Among other things this meant that there could be no Palestinian victims. It was logically impossible for Palestinians to be victims of Israelis. The Israelis, as victims of the Holocaust were super victims, perennial victims. Given this, how could Israelis victimize anyone? All the talk of Palestinian suffering must be slander, the product of Arab anti-Semitism, which they borrowed from the Nazis. In the court of Western opinion, the Palestinians didn't have a prayer.

Worse, Israeli victim hood nullified Palestinian rights. The rights of the Palestinians - to their land, their freedom and dignity - counted for nothing if they collided with infinitely superior claims of Israeli super victims. Indeed, any Palestinian action in defense of their rights - if pressed against Israel - automatically earned the charge of immorality. Thus, Zionists charged that Palestinians, by opposing unrestricted immigration of Jews in the 1930's, had sent Jews to Nazi death camps. Under this logic, the very existence of Palestinians was immoral.

Israel's victim hood could also justify violence against Palestinians. The Israelis had earned the right to inflict any violence on the Palestinians that did not exceed their own suffering at the hands of the Nazis. As the world's super victims, there was no risk that their own violence could ever cross the limit where it would become unacceptable. The Israelis would remain blameless as long as they were not transporting Palestinians to gas chambers. Among others, Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, employed this logic when protesting the West's muted concerns over the condition of Palestinian refugees. The problem of refugees, he argued, was nothing compared to the murder of six million Jews.

It was easy stripping Palestinians of their most basic rights - to their homes, lands, villages, towns, heritage and history. The Israelis demolished these rights with propaganda masquerading as history. The Palestinians had forfeited these rights because they had fled their homes voluntarily, following orders from Arab radio stations; they were not fleeing from Jewish terror. This concoction entered history books in Israel and the United States. No one asked for the evidence; no one asked if this made sense. No one asked if the Zionists had not planned this exodus all along. After all, how could a Jewish state in Palestine exist with all the Palestinians still in place?

The Zionist ideologues went about demonizing the Arabs too. They argued that the Arabs rejected the 1948 partition of Palestine because of a primeval Arab hatred for Jews, hatred that is akin to European anti-Semitism. The Arabs were excoriated for doing what any people faced with destruction would have done - fight against those who sought their destruction. Implicitly, the Zionist argued that the Arabs, or any race of inferior worth, did not possess the right to defend themselves against destruction by a superior people, such as the European Zionists. This was the logic of European racism.