.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Monday, April 27, 2009

Obama's Starched-Shirt Old & Middle-Aged White Men Mentors, like Lee Hamilton, Chaz Freeman and Others

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Obama is probably the greatest faker to become president since 1900 --and he has a lot of competition. Like George Bush Jr's pretense at being against "terrorism," whereas George B played ball with many a terrorist. Arafat was only one of them. But we think Obama takes the cake as a fraud. He came to power on the slogan of Change. Hence, a lot of the fools thought that he was against that old Establishment of middle-aged white men wearing ties, jackets, and starched shirts who have so long dominated Washington. In fact, Obama has long been taking counsel with the worst of these Establishment white men. Shortly before the inauguration, it came out that he met discreetly with Lee Hamilton, an ex-congressman, veteran hater of Israel, director of the Wilson Center, and the Hamilton of the Baker-Hamilton Report put out by the so-called Iraq Study Group. Note that George B Jr had already begun to implement their recommendations about two years ago. So much for Change.

It now turns out that Hamilton is the gray eminence [eminence grise] behind young, fresh-faced, innocent Obama who naively sat in Pastor Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years and never heard him say a mean word about white folk, like his dear granny. Maybe Obama is hard of hearing or has some sort of auditory problem. Anyway, it now turns out that he not only looks up to Zbig Brzezinski, an old white feller, but he looks up to another old white feller, that is, Lee Hamilton [see link].

Another example of the kind of white folk that Obama's appointees hang around with and pal around with is Chaz Freeman, the kind of guy who likes to get close to the hog trough so that he can slurp up the goodies. After being ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chaz then became a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia [and for Communist China]. No doubt his loyal services to his Saudi employers were decently compensated from a pecuniary point of view. And then one of Obama's not so intelligent intelligence experts came along and wanted to appoint Chaz F to a sensitive job in editing the daily intelligence reports that go the president. Daily Beast claims Freeman is tied to the bin Laden family.

It is true that in the end Freeman was induced to decline the appointment although the NYTimes and other MSM "news" outlets did their best to cover up for him.

James Kirchick was one of those who wrote up the Chaz Freeman story that the NYTimes thought was "not fit to print" [here]. Here are some highlights from Kirchick:
The Chinese Communists are not the only authoritarians for whom Freeman seems to have a soft spot. From 1989 to 1992, he served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia, where he developed an affinity for the monarchs who run the kingdom as their own personal fiefdom. “I believe King Abdullah is very rapidly becoming Abdullah the Great,” he said last October. In 1997, he became president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Saudi-funded think tank in Washington. There, he bragged about publishing an “unabridged” version of “The Israel Lobby” by professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, which purports to expose the Jewish state’s nefarious power and the dual loyalties of Jewish government officials, journalists and political activists. A man who for a decade presided over a front group for a theocratic kleptocracy and who believes the title of “king” isn’t sufficient for the fat oil baron who rules that benighted land should pause before endorsing a work that questions the loyalty of others.

The elevation of Freeman provides welcome opportunity for a debate about a lobby, one just as well-financed and professionally staffed as the groups that support America’s strong relationship with Israel — that is, the one shilling for the House of Saud. While a pro-Saudi Arabia lobby does not enjoy nearly the same level of domestic support as the pro-Israel lobby (primarily because Saudi Arabia, unlike Israel, does things like behead homosexuals, ban women from driving and outlaw the practice of Christianity), the Saudis — and the Gulf states in general — have far more sympathizers in high-level positions in the State Department than does Israel, which is, and always has been, friendless at Foggy Bottom.
What Kirchick wrote several weeks ago about Foggy Bottom [the State Dept] is still true today. Next we ought to look at the anti-Jewish Racism of Obama/Hamilton/Freeman's opposition to Jews living in Judea-Samaria, as well as the anti-Black Racism of the Obama Administration's willingness to appease the genocidal regime of `Umar [Omar] al-Bashir in the Sudan [see link].

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

- - - - - - - - - -
More obamoid appeasement -- they want iran to have A-bomb capability.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, April 26, 2009

British Subject in Samaria Refuses to Host the Queen

A British Royal Subject Living in Samaria Tells the Queen that She Is Not Welcome while Her Government Tries to Choke the Jews Economically while Denying Jewish Human and National Rights

The British position is in fact Racist. It continues the British policy during the Mandate period in Israel and during the Holocaust to keep Jews out of Judea-Samaria and to allow/encourage the Arabs to drive out the Jews who were already there, especially as expressed in the 1939 White Paper policy. Of course, British policy encouraged Arabs to kill Jews in Baghdad [1941] and during the War of Independence [1947-1949], sending British troops to fight on the side of the Arabs. The official British information policy was to suppress news of the Holocaust as it was happening and could have been alleviated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Your Majesty, You're Not Welcome

By edict of a subject of Her Britannic Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II

Item: The British Embassy in Tel Aviv has decided to boycott Israeli
companies that invest in Judea and Samaria.

Your Majesty, one of your Ambassadors, Tom Phillips, who represents you in Israel, has recently decided that he would boycott the Kirya Tower in Tel Aviv, because it is partly owned by Africa-Israel whose owner, Lev Levayev, also owns a subsidiary company that has built homes in Judea and Samaria.

Now, I must confess that I am not entirely surprised: the same ambassador, His Excellency Tom Phillips, decided back in July of last year that, even though I am still a British citizen, a subject of the Crown, I am no longer fit to be represented by him, when His Excellency decided to ban "settlers" from British Embassy functions. That is to say, I no longer enjoy your royal protection.

You see, I live in Kfar Tapuach, a "settlement" in the "Israeli-occupied West Bank". To be more precise, I live in the heart of Samaria, just a few miles due south of Shechem. When I go running with my dog to the small hill a few dozen yards from my house, we overlook the city that the Arab occupiers call "Nablus". Because I chose to make my home here, where my ancestors lived millennia ago, I am no longer worthy of the words inscribed in my British passport: "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all
those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary". Unless - we should now add - the bearer happens to be an Israelite living in the heartland of Biblical Israel.

Well, with all due respect to Your Majesty and to His Excellency the British Ambassador to Israel, I am not exactly devastated by the blow. I never really expected your diplomatic services or security forces to look after me or my people, whether in the "West Bank," or "Israel proper," or anywhere else in the world.

I know that Britain was the only country in the entire world to voluntarily declare war against Nazi Germany, and I am aware of Britain's magnificent, impressive war effort during those hideously dark years - a record that will forever stand to Britain's credit - but still, Britain's record concerning Jews during the Holocaust is somewhat dismal. I am too weary to detail, once again, the Royal Air Force's refusal to bomb the railway lines taking Jews to the Nazi death camps even while bombing more distant targets; Martin Gilbert, in Auschwitz and the Allies, has documented this sorry episode far better than I could.

Are you aware that the entire British Empire accepted fewer Jewish refugees than the port of Shanghai? And do you remember the restrictions that the government of your father, King George VI, placed on Jews from Reich-occupied countries finding refuge in Britain? Again, I know that Britain's record in that regard is far better than that of most other countries, but it's not as if there was very stiff competition.

And do you remember that your father's government fought bitterly against Jewish independence anywhere in the Land of Israel? Are you even aware that during and after the Holocaust, when more than ever we needed refuge, and at a time when the God of Israel granted your father the infinite privilege of ruling over the Holy Land, the Royal Navy patrolled these shores to ensure that the survivors of Hitler's accursed inferno would not be allowed home? Are you aware that when the British Army left Haifa, Jaffa, Tzfat (Safed), Lod (Lydda), Ramle, and other places in 1948, they turned the police fortresses with their armouries and weapons over to the Arab forces?

As I said, I am not particularly surprised that His Excellency the British Ambassador is not entirely enamoured of what we Jews are doing today in your former colony.

I look over Shechem - the city where, three and a half millennia ago, when your ancestors in England were still living in trees and painting their faces with woad, my great-great- great (however many times over) grandfather Jacob saw his sons, Shimon (Simeon) and Levi, declare war against the entire city of Shechem because their prince dared to rape their sister Dinah. I needn't go into the gory details here, because it's clearly written in my people's national history book - Genesis, Chapter 34. (In 1611, your ancestor, King James I, commissioned an English translation of my people's holy book, so Your Majesty should have no difficulty reading the text.)

Ever since that day, 3,500 years ago, we have known to rely on no one's protection but our own and God's. It is an interesting concept of time and of history: your roots in England go back to 1066 - almost a thousand years; a history of which to be justifiably proud. Yet when your history was just beginning, our roots were already buried more than 2,500 years deep in Shechem. In fact, the village in which I live, Kfar Tapuach, gets its first mention in the Bible; again, look it up in Joshua 12:17, 16:8, 17:7, and plenty of other places. You see, my people's historical and geographical record pinpointed the location of Kfar Tapuach, and delineated the borders of our Holy Land, and defined the borders of the territory of each of the twelve Tribes of Israel well
over 2,000 years before the Domesday Book was ever compiled.

Well, I suppose that I, and hundreds of thousands of other Jews here in our Holy Land, will just have to get used to the idea that you and your kingdom find the idea of Jews settling their own land most distasteful. Very well, so be it. But I have to tell you, unaccustomed as I am to taking so discourteous a tone to Your Majesty, so long as this policy continues you are no longer welcome in my house here in Kfar Tapuach.

Your government's ideology concerning the appropriate location of Jews in Israel affects me about as much as my proclamation affects you. We will continue to live where we want in Israel, we will continue to build, we will continue to settle our Land as and where we want. Your father's army, navy and air force were unable to prevent us from building our national home even when Britannia ruled the waves and controlled the skies around these parts. Today, the British Empire is but a distant memory and your influence here is even lower than Ehud Olmert's credibility.

I understand that you and your government are anxious to appease the Muslims. On reflection, that's probably a wise policy. As much as we Jews had a written history in Shechem back when your ancestors in England were still living in trees, we will still be living here, building our Land and bringing sacrifices and singing psalms to God in our Holy Temple, long after your descendants will be living as dhimmis in the Islamic Republic of Englandistan.

Adar 12, 5769 / 08 March 2009
~=~=~=~=~=~= ~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[hat tip Sanda Lam]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unfortunately, Mr Jacobson is too confident that British influence in Israel is low. It is too high. Just consider that a few weeks ago Tony Blair somehow persuaded Ehud Barak, minister of defense, to allow British agent Gerry Adams, who masquerades as an Irish anti-imperialist, into Gaza in order to meet with Hamas for a photo op meant to humanize and defumigate those Nazi murderers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There have been quite a few encouraging archeological developments recently but I have not had the time to sort them out and report them. Will try soon although the usual political/diplomatic crisis keeps me busy.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, April 23, 2009

UK Nazi-Sympathizers Lead the Euro Pack in Making the Hamas & Hizbullah Socially Acceptable in EU Land

UPDATINGS 4-(23&24) & 5-14-2009 [see at bottom]

An excellent article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post on how the UK is working to embellish, edulcorate and perfume the Hamas, whether in the name of progress, democracy, enlightenment, humanity, peace or international understanding. Alistair Crooke, Tony Blair's point man in working with Hamas as early as 2002, is still at work on this nefarious project.
Here is a link to the article in the JPost. Links to earlier, relevant posts on Emet m'Tsiyon are below on this page.

Analysis: The energetic Hamas lobby
Apr. 22, 2009
JONATHAN SPYER , THE JERUSALEM POST

A meeting was meant to take place on Wednesday in the Grimond Room at Portcullis House, adjoining the House of Commons in London. The planned meeting was titled "Talk with Hamas" and was meant to feature a video link to Damascus.

Khaled Mashaal, leader of Hamas, was supposed to address members of Parliament and journalists via the link, but he failed, due to a technical glitch.

This planned meeting was the latest event in an ongoing and organized campaign to break the Western boycott of Hamas and transform policy toward the organization. Much energy is being expended in the UK. But London is only a way station, with the real prize being the transformation of the US stance.

This campaign is part of a larger effort to change the way that the West sees Islamist movements - and by doing so to bring many of the arguments made by such movements into the mainstream.

Who is behind this effort? The invitation to MPs to the Mashaal meeting came from the office of Independent MP Clare Short.

However, it was issued in the name of John, Lord Alderdice. This name immediately offers a pointer. Alderdice, a veteran Northern Irish politician, is head of the board of advisers of an organization called Conflicts Forum.

Conflicts Forum is jointly led by Alistair Crooke and Mark Perry, former intelligence officers from the UK and US, respectively. It describes its aim as opening "a new relationship between the West and the Muslim world."

What this anodyne phrase means in practice is revealed in a remarkably frank document published by this group, in which it explains the means it intends to use to bring about the basic change in perception that will bring Hamas and Hizbullah into the mainstream.

The document notes the need to build a "link-up between activist groups and mobilizers of opinion in order to shift the debate on Islamism from a predominantly defensive posture to a positive assertion of Islamist values and thinking."

It suggests "articulation of Hamas's and Hizbullah's values, philosophy and wider political and social programs... Being more proactive in statements and rephrasing discourse to focus on the positive aspects of Islamist ideology."

The Conflicts Forum publication lays down a precise strategy for the promotion of Hamas and Hizbullah in the West - of which the meeting in the British Parliament forms a part.

The various PR devices suggested include "Use influential individuals - key Muslim personalities... use the Internet, DVD, interviews, podcasts... Link with mass organizations in Western countries - social movements, trade unions - to challenge hegemonic discourse. Approach editors of established journals... with a view to the possibility of them doing a special issue on Islamist thinking or on particular issues."

Undoubtedly, the attempted video link between Hamas HQ in Damascus and the Grimond Room in Portcullis House was meant to be a worthy contribution to this extensive effort to "re-brand" Hamas and Hizbullah.

The UK, and the EU as a whole, remain committed to the Quartet conditions which Hamas must meet to become a partner for dialogue. Hamas (or at least its "military wing") remains on the EU list of proscribed terror organizations.

A cursory observation of the backers of Conflicts Forum, however, reveals a curious paradox. In January 2007, the group proudly announced that it had been awarded a grant of €500,000 by the EU, to develop "more inclusive and legitimate approaches to transforming the Middle East conflict." More specifically, the project entails the "engagement" of "faith-based movements."

So the EU, while currently opposing "engagement" with Hamas, also appears to be offering financial support to a body engaged in lobbying for the organization.

How important are the efforts of Conflicts Forum and its associated groups? Are initiatives such as Wednesday's planned meeting likely to have a tangible effect on policy?

Britain has, of course, already announced that it intends to hold talks with Hizbullah. On Hamas, however, no immediate significant shift in British government policy looks likely.

The Hamas Lobby is busy and active. It encompasses former senior diplomats such as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, as well as the Conflicts Forum nexus.

Foreign Secretary Miliband has praised the Egyptian role in managing dialogue with Hamas in the following terms: "Others speak to Hamas. That's the right thing to do, and I think we should let the Egyptians take this forward."

A knowledgeable source noted that many in the Foreign Office consider that engagement with the group is a "matter of time."

Still, for as long as the US remains firmly committed to insisting that Hamas first abide by the three Quartet conditions (committing to nonviolence, recognizing Israel and accepting previous agreements and obligations), the UK is unlikely to openly break ranks. Differences might well surface if a Palestinian unity government were to be formed. But this too currently looks highly improbable.

Ultimately, the main obstacle to the success of Lord Alderdice, Clare Short and their friends in Conflicts Forum may well be the nature of their client. Hamas leaders have an unfortunate tendency to be candid regarding their movement's goals. This makes presenting the "positive aspects of Islamist ideology" something of a challenge.

Hamas "Foreign Minister" Mahmoud Zahar, for example, speaking last week, stated bluntly that "[Hamas] will never recognize the enemy in any way, shape or form."

A few months ago, the same speaker asserted that "they [Jews] have legitimized the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine... They have legitimized the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people."

Spinning statements of that kind into moderation would pose a challenge to the smoothest of PR operators. But as the planned Portcullis House meeting showed, Hamas possesses an experienced, well-oiled, well-funded (largely by the European taxpayer) lobby in the heart of London, in which it may take justifiable pride.

Jonathan Spyer is a Senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.
[Jerusalem Post, 4-22-2009]

Kudos to Jonathan Spyer. Here is a link to earlier British pro-Hamas efforts going back to at least 2002 [& see here & here & here]. Today's Islamists and their friends claim to see Muslims everywhere as victims and use the term Islamophobia to describe this alleged victimization. We might charge the UK with Jihadophilia, the love of Islamic jihad, to describe how the UK promotes Islamobarbarism.

Postscript to J Spyer's article by Barry Rubin [link here --see at bottom of linked to page]:
Just as distinguished and very well-mannered British apologists for Hamas were holding a meeting explaining that Hamas is misunderstood, the group continues its openly antisemitic and genocidal rhetoric. See for yourself.

In a recent booklet entitled The Zionist Holocaust, here is what Hamas has to say:

Page 10: "that country, the one called `Israel'...believes only in killing and destruction...some of its principles are endless fighting, shedding blood and corruption. For the Jews, all men are flocks of lambs [i.e., fit for slaughter], while only they [the Jews] are fit to live ...”

Page 221: The Palestinians have only two options, to surrender or wiping out Israel and the Jews.

Oh and the Introduction is written by Ismail Haniya, who is often referred to as a "moderate" and the leader of Hamas's "political wing."
[Memo to Haniya: That was very clever of you to hide the Hamas leadership and set up its command post in Shifa hospital. That way if Israel attacked you could accuse it of war crimes and since it didn't you were safe and could run your war from there. And you probably don't even have to worry about the Western media picking up the story.] [Here at bottom of linked to page]
For a frank statement of genocidal intentions by Hamas, see the Hamas charter, Article 7, among other parts of the charter.
Israeli journalist, formerly of `Al HaMishmar, Pinhas `Inbari, explains that both Israel and PA/Fatah ought to rightly be suspicious of the EU [in Hebrew for the JCPA].
UPDATING 5-14-2009 Michael Young describes Alistair Crooke's role in trying to make Hamas & Hizbullah socially acceptable in polite society. Young also explains why Crooke's idea is a bad one.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, April 17, 2009

Ignoramus Western Journalists and Commentators View Hizbullah Romantically as the "Real" Lebanon

Western observers both living inside and outside of Lebanon often delight in seeing Hizbullah as the real, the authentic, the truly Third Worldish Lebanon, a land of austerity, hatred of the West, incorruptible hatred of Israel and Jews, swift and sure punishment of religious backsliders, enemies of bourgeois Western civilization, etc. This Authentic Lebanon is contrasted with the Lebanon of bourgeois prosperity & luxury, adoption of features of Western culture, insufficient hatred of Israel, free market economy, and the like. Michael Young perceptively complains about the wilful blindness about Lebanon so often compulsively demonstrated and deployed by Western observers, journalists, commentators, diplomats, policy analysts, politicians, etc.
Hizbullah also benefits from the underlying contempt among many Westerners for the baroque Lebanese system itself, all nods and winks and clandestine compromises. Here is a party that can build institutions, that means what it says and says what it means, and that in many respects defines itself against the duplicity of the traditional politicians. More interestingly, it speaks for a once marginalized community, so that it presents several ingredients to spur Western sympathy and appreciation: a social cause, methodicalness in the pursuit of its objectives, an institutional structure transcending the narrow retail politics of most Lebanese leaders, rhetorical precision, and purported honesty.

And then there is authenticity. Hizbullah is widely seen as representing a truer Lebanon than the Lebanon of confused identities lying outside the party's realm. Remember how the media in 2005 translated the emancipation movement against Syria. For three weeks after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the story was that of a liberal Lebanon revolting against an illiberal Syria and its Lebanese peons, a rare occasion during the post-Civil War period when that narrative dominated. However, its fragility was highlighted on March 8, when Hizbullah organized its mass demonstration at Riad al-Solh square. Suddenly, interpretations shifted. The "real Lebanon" had spoken, observers said, and it had spoken with verve, so that the anti-Syrian demonstrators of the weeks before, with their Occidental pretensions and designer clothes, were now dismissed as creations of the Western media. Then March 14 came, confusing the observers further and resurrecting the liberal plot line, if not for very long.

The irony is that the very attributes that make many Westerners so belittle the
Lebanese political and social order in Hizbullah's favor are actually present in Hizbullah in more concentrated ways. The Lebanese system is archaic, undemocratic and sectarian? Well then what do you call a Shiite Leninist organization, led by a leader who will probably remain in office for life, that calls itself the Party of God? And what reaction do one's Western liberal instincts provoke when that centralized religious party glorifies violent self-sacrifice and makes permanent armed struggle a centerpiece of its ideological mindset, mainly on behalf of an autocratic clerical regime in Iran, its Lebanese authenticity notwithstanding? As for corruption, those who see Hizbullah as spotless should learn a trifle more about the party's illicit networks, or those of individuals close to the party. In that regard, we can say that Hizbullah is as Lebanese as anyone else.
[Beirut Daily Star, 4-16 -2009].
Of course, the notion of Hizbullah as being opposed to Western policy is false and always has been. The Hizb was set up by the Khomeini regime in Iran which was helped to take power precisely by the US Carter Administration of cursed memory זכרונו לקללה . It must be said that "leftist" politicians in the West are usually the readiest to praise and sympathize with the Hizb. But essentially, "leftists" like Massimo d'Alema do not necessarily oppose the mainstream policy of the UK, US, & EU regarding Lebanon --or that regarding Iran for that matter [on d'Alema (former Communist foreign minister of Italy under Prodi), vedere qui & qui] .

Consider that if reports on Lebanon are falsified, whether out of prejudice which cannot or does not want to understand or perceive the reality of the country, or out of conscious lying in order to suit a newspaper's or magazine's or TV network's or government's political prejudices, then reports about Israel can be falsified for the same reasons. And even more so --a fortiori-- on account of traditional Western Judeophobia.

Just by the way, all this loving misunderstanding of Hizbullah is adding up to Western recognition of the Hizb's rightful rule over Lebanon. Who would have thought?
Lebanon: The West is ready to deal and negotiate with Hizbullah, in case it wins the parliamentary elections in June, according to the Hizbullah number 2, Shaykh Na`im Kassem. Hassan Nasrallah's right hand man stated that "the Western countries are falling all over each other to talk to us and will do it more so in the future." He insisted that his party did not fear being boycotted by the international community as was the case with Hamas in 2006.[GuysenNews 4-16-2009]

Liban : l'Occident est prêt à traiter avec le Hezbollah, en cas de victoire aux législatives de juin, selon son n°2, le cheikh Naïm Kassem. Le bras droit de Hassan Nasrallah a déclaré que ''les pays occidentaux se bousculent pour nous parler et le feront davantage à l'avenir''. Il a insisté sur le fait que son parti ne craignait pas d'être
boycotté par la communauté internationale comme ce fut le cas avec le Hamas en 2006. [GuysenNews 4-16-2009]
Now isn't this just heartwarming news? The Western powers are going to be oh so liberal, kind, democratic, generous and peace-loving as to work with the Hizbullah IslamoNazis!! It seems that they have come a long way since their 1938 negotiations with Hitler that brought about World War 2 only because Hitler had misunderstood his peace accord with that nice Mr Chamberlain!!

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, April 16, 2009

PR Hack Bill Moyers moves over to Goebbels Land

Three months ago, Bill Moyers, press secretary to Pres Lyndon B Johnson during the war in Vietnam, made an explicitly racist anti-Jewish claim. He said that the Jews were "genetically" inclined to violence. Note, not Muslim peoples especially and generally [the Arabs, the Turks, the Pakistanis, etc] but the Jews. He does mention the Arabs but gets in his racial point by mentioning the Jews' and Arabs' common link to the Patriarch Abraham. Thus the Arabs are "genetically coded" to be violent through their link to the Jews.

Now, this claim is especially sinister coming from Moyers who is a professional propagandist, a long-time commentator on PBS, a US-govt supported TV network in the US supposedly aiming at a high-brow audience. Since leaving Johnson's employ in the Sixties, Moyers has spent his time in promoting various political programs through PBS and other avenues. He has always been subtly anti-Israel. Now, he is clearly racist against Jews. After all, "genetically" means racially.

Here's a video of his broadcast. One of his false claims is that Israel was "waging war on an entire population." In fact, the Israel army made immense efforts to avoid killing non-combatants. The large majority of those killed were in fact Hamas terrorist militiamen. Ostensibly civilian targets, like the Islamic University of Gaza, were hit because they used by Hamas to store rockets, explosives and other weapons. In the case of the "University", its laboratories were used to "improve" their deadly rockets. Don't forget that Moyers was a spokesman in favor of the Vietnam war and American military actions there, which often killed civilians. Bizarrely, he admits that civilians were often killed in Vietnam, claiming that Israel did in Gaza what the United States did in Vietnam. What he does not admit on this broadcast is that he was one of the chief US propagandists defending the war and the mass killing of civilians that it involved.

What got most people upset was his absurd and outrageous claim that "God-soaked violence became genetically coded." Here he referred to both Jews and Arabs. I don't think that Jews were ever "genetically coded" to be violent anymore than that violence is a common, near universal human phenomenon. I think that Jews are patient, maybe too patient with the violence of others committed against themselves, although this patience and forebearance may be due to the political weakness of Jews in most places throughout the world. Nor do I think that Arabs are genetically coded to be violent any more than humans in general. However, in practice Arabs do seem to more violent and blood-thirsty than others, but this is due to their Muslim religion which encourages violence and killing [call it murder if you like] on the grounds of various religious principles. But this does not mean genetically determined. Moyers claim is nasty and has racist implications.

By the way, Moyers makes several other factual errors and/or lies. For one, he mistranslates the Biblical commandment in the Ten Commandments, Do Not Murder לא תרצח as Thou shalt not kill, making the unfounded insinuation that Moses was a hypocrite since he called for war, which obviously involves killing. However, neither Moses nor the Israelites/Jews nor any nation that I know of, ever renounced war, if only as a last resort. The mistranslation "Thou shalt not kill" may be due to the translators of the King James Version. However, it does not fit the original Hebrew. If Moyers is ignorant of this translation error, than maybe we can't blame him. But I think that he is rather too sophisticated not to know that the Hebrew original differs from the translation. Note that insinuation is one of propagandist tricks.

I commented on Moyers' lie at the Augean Stables blog, starting with a quote from a reader who tried to defend Moyers. On 18 Jan 2009 [I think], Bill Stewart remarked to RL, the chief blogger at Augean Stables:
Why did you choose to end your transcript where you did? Perhaps because it doesn’t fit your narrative and your zeal to smear an honest man. When you go back to the original statement (it’s at about the 5:12 mark for those of you who would rather skip over other sober and interesting thoughts on the Gaza violence), Moyers’ next words are: “A radical stream of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth.” It’s clear with anyone of even middling intelligence that Moyers is not singling out Jews but in fact the rooting out a biblical source of violence encoded in the human race in general. I’m thrilled at Conservatives’ new found zeal to root out anti-Semitism (because we all know where traditionally anti-semitism has resided in this country), but I don’t think it’s too much to ask you to exercise a little of dignity and rigour in your readings and analysis. Moyers could have been more precise, you can question his theological acumen, but I think it’s pretty clear that Moyers is not being anti-Semitic.

I trust that Stewart correctly quoted Moyers and I think that he has unwittingly pointed to an important aspect of Moyers’ modus operandi. What Moyers did was to embed or implant like a stinkweed his very offensive, indeed Nazi-like, remark within a rosegarden of reasonable, even truthful statements, such as Stewart quoted above. It’s an old trick of psywar. It’s like mixing bitter medicine into a sweet syrup to disguise its taste from children. Here the sweet syrup are rather innocuous remarks. And the offensive remark embedded into it does not reflect its context. So it’s appropriate to take it out of its context. Vance Packard called this technique a “hidden persuader.” The innocuous context might mislead people into overlooking how sinister the statement is.

Now, Moyers is an expert at psychological warfare. That’s what he’s been doing at PBS for years. When he worked for Lyndon Baines Johnson, he was a relative beginner in the field, just a White House press secretary. Now, he influences the supposedly educated, refined, cultured crowd that watches PBS and listens to NPR, which by the way, are financed in part by your taxpayers’ dollars. They are semi-official agencies
of the US govt. Anyhow, how dare LBJ’s press secretary pontificate to us and preach morality to us about violent mass death? Does he recall that anti-LBJ chant?
LBJ, how many kids did you kill today? Does Moyers think that that chant was fair to his boss?

I think that the kindest thing to say about Moyers is that he is a demopath, somebody who uses humanitarian and democratic rhetoric for the opposite purpose. RL made an important contribution in discerning the demopath phenomenon.

Now, the fact that such a prominent member of the Establishment has seen fit to utter this scandalous claim of Jews’ being genetically coded for violence is a very sinister omen. The remark is worthy of Nazi propaganda. It is not as crude as Der Ewige Jude, the Nazi propaganda film against Jews. However, we ought to bear in mind that the Nazis too were capable of saying things that were very reasonable or might seem to be, like Chomsky and A-jad. Indeed, Genevieve Tabouis reported that at the fall 1933 session of the League of Nations, German delegates stressed their attachment to democracy, liberalism, peace, and other Good Things. The outrage over Moyers’ sinister remark should not become silent.

Just recall that Moyers has been working for the US govt since the 1960s. And your tax dollars finance PBS.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

The BBC works in an atmosphere of slanders and fraud-- Besmirching character seems to come naturally to such as Jeremy Bowen

UPDATING 4-17-2009 [links on PM Gordon Brown & Jeremy Bowen added]

We and many others have long held that the BBC deliberately smears Israel in its radio and TV broadcasts labeled "news." One BBC propaganda agent, Jeremy Bowen, chief of propaganda on Middle Eastern affairs for the Beeb, has recently been censured [also see here & ici (added 4-17-2009)]. Either he had gone too far or representations made by CAMERA and British critics of the BBC had put the management in the position of having to discipline him.

But the BBC works in a political atmosphere where slander and fraud, fake "news" stories and sleaze operate at the highest level of government. A close associate of PM Gordon Brown, one Damian McBride, invented vicious slanders, sexual and otherwise, of opposition politicians. David Pryce-Jones reports part of the McBride story:
McPoison

The name of Damian McBride was virtually unknown in Britain, except to a small circle of political insiders, and some of them already called him McPoison. That nickname will now stick for the rest of his life, a reminder of disgrace and shame. For some time this man has been in charge of communications for Gordon Brown, the prime minister, with an office in Downing Street and a six-figure salary courtesy of the taxpayer. Brown likes to parade a fine set of morals on every conceivable occasion, stressing that he is the son of an upright Scottish clergyman, boasting that he himself is whiter than white, and that sleaze in his administration would not be tolerated because he has values (a favorite word of his, spoken with a strange little twist of his mouth). All this release of morality, it turns out, is for external consumption; for internally he has been directing McBride to release rats from the sewer.

The Conservatives had apparently been winning the battle for public opinion in the blogosphere. Therefore McBride decided to launch a website, to be titled Red Rag, on which he would put lies and innuendoes to denigrate these political opponents. To a colleague and like-minded spin-doctor, also a Labour insider and advisor, by the name of Derek Draper, he sent samples, involving disgusting sexual fictions about Conservative leaders, including David Cameron and George Osborne. They also fabricated stories about Mrs. Osborne’s state of mind. Absolutely totally brilliant, Draper chortled to McBride. The pair were evidently certain that this filth would stick and win them the election to be held next June. It is inconceivable that they did this without at least the knowledge of Brown, and quite likely his approval, whether open or tacit. Brown used to consult McBride daily, and Draper was invited to Chequers, the prime minister’s country residence.

A Conservative blogger somehow learnt about all this, and exposed it. The scandal is rocking Britain. At first Brown and the others tried to cover up, pretending that this was all juvenile, and never intended for publication. That could not wash. McBride has been duly fired. Brown tries to plead ignorance. The Conservatives are pressing for an apology, but moral Mr. Brown will do no more than express regret.

In the centuries of British parliamentary and political life, hard things have often been said and cruel deeds done, but the cut and thrust did not involve deliberate and considered destruction of rivals through deception and lying and sexual scurrilities concocted behind the scene like this. Previous socialists would not have sunk so low, but such complete disregard for principle in the pursuit of power is nonetheless the outcome, the necessary culmination, of socialism

Think of McBride when you watch or listen to the BBC. Is Tony Blair above this kind of fraud? Was Gordon Brown unaware of the scandalous conduct? If they're willing and even eager to lie like this about fellow British politicians, what lies wouldn't they invent about Israel or Jews?

Labels: , ,

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Tony Blair Supports Hamas Officially -- Gerry Adams of the IRA [Sinn Fein] now officially a British agent

Peace --the last refuge of the scoundrel
Eliyahu m'Tsiyon [circa 2007]

Tony Blair is the former two-faced prime minister of the UK, called Tony Phoney by his fellow Britishers. After leaving his PM's office, he was appointed as envoy to the "peace process" [that is, to Israel and the palestinian authority] by the Quartet to see how its "Road Map to peace" was being implemented. Yet, true to form, Tony Phoney has disregarded those items in the "Road Map" that required corrective action by the PA. Moreover, he has shown his contempt for peace by promoting the anti-peace Hamas whose very charter openly calls on Muslims to kill Jews. That is, Blair aids a genocidal Islamic jihad gang. One way that he helped them very recently was to intervene with the Israeli government to allow one Gerry Adams into Gaza in order to have a photo op with Hamas leaders and proclaim his "solidarity" with them. Our foreign ministry had wisely --for once-- opposed letting Adams into Gaza, understanding what he was likely to do. Thwarted by the Foreign Ministry, Blair turned to Defense Minister Barak [Labor Party] who complied with Blair's hysterical urgings:
Tony Blair intervened directly with Defense Minister Ehud Barak to enable Northern Ireland politician Gerry Adams through the Erez Crossing and into the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, where he met Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The decision to let Adams into the Gaza Strip came against recommendations by the Foreign Ministry, which had urged that Israel not facilitate his passage because he was unwilling to promise not to meet with Hamas representatives.

The Foreign Ministry was concerned that high profile meetings of international politicians with Hamas would only grant the organization legitimacy.

Defense officials said the decision to allow Adams into Gaza was taken by Barak after Blair brought a personal request to him during a meeting earlier this week.

The officials said Blair had told Barak that Adams, the leader of the Irish Republican Army-linked Sinn Fein party, had experience as a mediator, and could pass messages and act as a go-between for Israel and Hamas.

Israeli officials refused to meet with Adams because he was willing to meet with Hamas representatives.

Adams is scheduled to go to Ramallah for talks on Friday.

Adams's meeting with Haniyeh, at an undisclosed location in Gaza City, was not announced ahead of time.

TV footage from a local news outlet showed Adams sitting in an armchair next to Haniyeh. "We want to help. We support the Palestinian people," Adams said. [read more here in Jerusalem Post 4-9-2009]
Blair has been working to promote Hamas as a partner for peace since at least 2002, through his operative in Israel, the appropriately named Alistair Crooke [for more on blair & hamas see here & here]. So we see that Blair is a lover of Hamas, or perhaps he sees Hamas as a convenient tool for helping the Arabs finish Hitler's work, whereas the UK was a silent partner in the Holocaust in the 1930s & 1940s [see earlier posts on the Emet m'Tsiyon blog]. The Hamas quite frankly declares genocide of the Jews to be its goal in its charter, see especially Article 7. This article quotes a medieval Muslim fable from the Hadith in which rocks and trees call on Muslims to kill Jews at the End of Days.

Meanwhile, Gerry Adams, the smooth, oily spokesman for the IRA under the rubric of the Sinn Fein political party demonstrates that he is an agent of British anti-Israel, Judeophobic policy. After all, Blair understood very well what Israel's Foreign Ministry also understood, that Adams would use his visit to Gaza to promote the Hamas. So, for all his anti-imperialist pretensions, Adams works for the same goals regarding Israel and the Jews as does the British Empire. Adams is an agent. Coincidentally, a few days ago, British foreign minister Miliband was in Rabat-Ammon [Amman] in Jordan, complaining that the Jerusalem municipality was wrongly demolishing illegally built Arab houses in the city, not mentioning that the municipality also demolishes illegally built Jewish houses and other structures. This means that Miliband was denying the Jewish right of sovereignty over Jerusalem, a city that owes its importance to the world to its place in Israelite/Jewish history and religion. It is a city where Jews have been the majority since 1853, at least, and that was in the Old City, which was the whole city at that time. Miliband also pretends not to know that the Arab forces, including the British-officered Arab Legion of Jordan [then Transjordan] drove Jews out of parts of Jerusalem that they captured in 1947-1948, including the Old City with its ancient Jewish holy sites & medieval Jewish Quarter. Jews could not return to their homes after that war, ended by an armistice accord in 1949. This part of Jerusalem was Judenrein for 19 years until Israeli forces retook it in 1967, allowing Jews to live there once again. Arab spokespersons have the hhutspah to call that area "traditionally Arab East Jerusalem." Judeophobic Britain denies Jewish rights of residence there, whereas British forces helped the Arabs to drive out the Jews from there in 1947-1948. So the policy of the UK has not changed in 61 years regarding Jewish rights of residence in Jerusalem.
- - - - - - - - -
More on British anti-Israel intrigue: Bill Rammell, a British minister of state, said that the Obama administration is "comfortable" with British overtures to the Nazi Hizbullah [I call them Nazis because they espouse Nazi-like views of the Jewish people]. See Jerusalem Post, 4-5-2009 [based AP report] & Aurora [Spanish-language Israeli weekly 4 (7-15) 2009].

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, April 03, 2009

Uncle Tom Obama Bows Down to the Massa

UPDATINGS 4-6-2009 & 4-9-2009

Is it fair to call Obama an Uncle Tom just because he bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia, a country where slavery was not outlawed --on paper-- until 1962 and continued there in practice? Obama seems to have gone farther in obeisance to the Saudis than previous American high officials. But actually he is only going in the same direction as they did --but farther. After all, John Foster Dulles, a State Department veteran and secretary of state for Pres. Eisenhower, bestowed an expensive pistol on King Saud of Saudi Arabia who visited the United States in 1957. Presidents George Bush I & II were both very considerate of and compliant with Saudi desires and demands. But I don't know that either of them ever bowed down to a Saudi royal. In that way, Obama may be the first. Certainly that is Change that we can believe in.

Here is a still photo of Obama bowing down, taken from the back [hat tip-Flopping Aces]. If you want to be sure that Obama is the one bowing down, if you want see him approach King PastaFazoolah, watch the video showing the scene at the G20 meeting before and after Obama's craven bow [From Michelle Malkin].

John Foster Dulles testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committe in February 1956 on the issue of why the United States was selling war planes to Saudi Arabia but not to Israel. He also justified the US Army policy of not sending Jewish soldiers in the US Armed Forces to bases in Saudi Arabia. Senators had criticized the fact that:
"the agreement for the US airbase at Dhahran permitted Saudi Arabia to exclude any 'objectionable' individuals. The United States was required to submit a detailed list of the names and identities of personnel and employees. Dulles. . . went on to explain why American Jews could not be assigned to an American base. There was an audible gasp when he said that Saudi Arabia practices 'very rigorously certain religious doctrines, and they have felt for a long time --it goes back centuries-- a very particular animosity toward the Jews because they credited the assassination of Mohammed to a Jew' [actually, to a Jewess said to have poisoned him]. Dulles later revised his testimony to read:
'a very particular animosity toward the Jews since the time of Mohammed.' While the Secretary [JFDulles] personally disapproved such practices, we had to recognize that Saudi Arabia was an 'ally.' "'We perforce accomodate ourselves to certain practices they have which we do not like; they perhaps accomodate themselves to certain of our idiosyncrasies which they do not like, but on the whole they have a pretty arbitrary rule, largely dictated by the strict tenets of the Moslem faith.'" [I L Kenen, Israel's Defense Line: Her Friends and Foes in Washington (Buffalo NY: Prometheus 1981), pp 127-128].
What is bizarre nowadays is that the medieval religious bigotry of Islam in general and the Saudi kingdom in particular now enjoy the approval and patronage of what is called the "Left." The catering to and fawning over Arab kings that typified the State Dept, the Republican Eisenhower administration and the US oil companies that were partners in ARAMCO in the 1950s is now identified as "leftist." The Islamic laws that govern life in Saudi Arabia have not much changed in the last fifty years since the heyday of the Dulles brothers, John Foster and Allen, but today it is all done with the approval of the "Left."

On the US Treasury's financial support or hidden foreign aid for Saudi Arabia through the Foreign Tax Credit, see here & here. See our previous posts on Saudi influence in the West here & here.

Can anyone who is intelligent, knowledgeable and serious take seriously the walt-mearsheimer claim that Israel controls Washington policy toward the Middle East??

It is also of interest that Dulles, no friend of Israel as should be clear from the above, traces Arab/Muslim hatred of Jews back to Muhammad. He does not blame it on "occupation" or the Arab refugee problem or any other alleged offense of the State of Israel. Today, of course, anti-Israel [read: Judeophobic] propaganda and psywar have become much more sophisticated.
- - - - - - - -
More commentary on the Bow and obeisance to the Saudis: here & here & here & David Pryce-Jones here, & a stong Washington Times editorial here.

- - - - - - - -

UPDATING 4-6-2009 & 4-9-2009 --- John F Kennedy was photographed in a friendly scene with King Saud arriving at the White House in a US Army helicopter. JFK is not bowing however [see here]. On the other hand, Prez George Bush II bows down before the present king, Abdullah, down to only a 30 degree angle approx. [see here from Little Green Footballs] and perhaps only to let the king place a medal or decoration on a ribbon around his neck, whereas Obama's bow is deeper, about 90 degrees. I now have to be slightly more charitable to Obama about his sycophancy, his toadying, to the Saudis --after all, his forerunner, George II did too, apparently not as deeply-- but my conclusion about Saudi influence in Washington is reinforced.

Labels: , , , ,