Lie after Lie after Lie for Israel

In the article, The Case Against Alan Dershowitz Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. Dershowitz, Regan Boychuk exposes more of Dershowitz's lies in the service of Zionism. Boychuk writes, "In the course of arguing that Israeli authorities no longer torture Palestinians, Dershowitz claimed he had a long conversation with the Israeli human rights organization, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), in which PCATI not only conceded that there was no longer any torture for them to investigate, but that they refused to change their name because it helped them attract media attention. Although organizers of his lecture wore shirts arrogantly proclaiming, “Dersh knows more than you”, I decided to check his claim."
And Boychuk finds that Dershowitz is lying, "PCATI was still reporting that “Instances of torture, abuse, prisoners held incommunicado and excessive violence against [Palestinian] detainees continue to grow in both numbers and severity”, while “interrogators and perpetrators of torture, their commanders and superiors enjoy impunity.”

Norman Finkelstein also exposes Dershowitz as a liar in his new book Beyond Chutzpah : On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History

Finkelstein documents the fact that apologists for Israel contrive controversy. "Whenever Israel comes under international pressure, another media campaign alleging a global outbreak of anti-Semitism is mounted." "The core analysis of Beyond Chutzpah sets Dershowitz's assertions on Israel's human rights record against the findings of the mainstream human rights community. Sifting through thousands of pages of reports from organizations such as Amnesty International, B'Tselem, and Human Rights Watch, Finkelstein demonstrates that Dershowitz has systematically misrepresented the facts."


"A very solid, important and highly informative book. Norman Finkelstein provides extensive details and analysis, with considerable historical depth and expert research, of a very wide range of issues concerning Israel, the Palestinians, and the U.S."--Noam Chomsky, author of Hegemony or Survival America's Quest for Global Dominance also available at Powell's: Hegemony or Survival

Bush Fascists Remove Citizens from Town Hall

ALEXANDER YOUNG: Well, on Monday, March 21, at an event billed as a “conversation on saving Social Security,” I and two friends, Leslie Weise and Karen Bauer, decided to go down and participate in this dialogue. Unfortunately, we were evicted before the President arrived by an as yet unnamed man, because of the content on the bumper sticker of my friend's car. That bumper sticker said, “No more blood for oil.”

AMY GOODMAN: And so, you went from the car, what, a parking lot?

ALEXANDER YOUNG: Right. We were parked in the parking lot, stood in line for a half an hour or so, went and sat down in the audience and then were forcibly ejected by a person who was posing as a secret service agent.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you think he was a secret service agent?

ALEXANDER YOUNG: Previous to our entry, he had pulled aside a couple of friends of mine. Leslie and Karen were pulled aside and were told to wait for the secret service to arrive. And this man appeared and started threatening them, telling them that they would be sent to prison and arrested if they pulled anything while they were inside.

AMY GOODMAN: And then?

ALEXANDER YOUNG: And then, this is the same individual who came and grabbed us from the audience and started pushing and shoving us out of the hall.

AMY GOODMAN: On what grounds?
read more ... Three People Forcibly Removed From Bush "Town Hall" Meeting on Social Security

A Craigslist poster writes, "The arab nations have been in a declared state of war with Israel since her establishment in 1948"

WAIT A MINUTE!!

It is misleading to say "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State.
To put it in plain English: Zionist Jews had already attacked by the time May 1948 rolled around and Zionist Jews "declared Israel" (33% of a population insisting something upon the majority of the people, what right did they have to do this? That was not democracy, it was a violation of the rights of 67% of the people in Palestine. ) The attack by Zionist Jews was already under way and had been for months by the time some of the Arab nations responded.

This is a very important thing for everyone to understand. Read more here: NOTE: This is a critical fact often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State.

The Craigslist poster also wrote, "The "Palestinians" are as much a part of that antagonistic arab polity as any."

Your comment is literally delusional. You are either ignorant or you are intentionally spreading falsehoods in order to serve Zionist Israel. know

"antagonistic" are you nuts? It is the Zionists that plotted to ethnically cleanse Palestine and they executed that plan!You think non-Jews in Palestine should have been happy to be oppressed, slaughtered and ethnically cleansed? You think the Palestinians should be happy that you deny their very existence with your smart ass habit of putting the word Palestinians in quotes. England referred to Palestine DECADES before Zionist Israel existed and the people that come from a place have a name. If you are from Africa you are an African, what a disgusting and racist Zionist tactic you use by putting the word Palestinians in quotes. Zionism is truly disgusting. You are as sick as a KKK member or an racist white South African citizen posting on craigslist and mocking Black people. Oh and that is an explicate example of a comparison between South Africa and Israel which you asked for. Survey: Israel yet to grasp concept of democracy The craigslist comments are such ugly propaganda of the same arguments spread by what is called "hasbara"

A Craigslist poster responds, "Hey buddy, I think you are losing it there!!! I see you reposted the same historically distorted shit that you always post."

Put up or shut up. Don't just make a claim, back it up with something for God sakes.
You are not presenting ANY facts to support your delusion, shouldn't that make you think?

A Craigslist poster responds, "You can use loaded phrases like "ethnic cleansing" and "Zionists on the attack" but it does not change the fact that you are distorting and twisting history."

Again, don't just make a claim, make an attempt to present a shred of evidence to try to dispute what I have posted.

A Craigslist poster argues, "there would not be a single "Palestinian" refugee if the arabs have not been seeking to annihilate the Jews since 1948"

Are you actually retarded? What did I just spell out to you? It is the Zionists that are the aggressors, THEY are the ones that pushed into Palestine with the intention of driving out non-Jews,. They are extremist racists and they were doing their dirty work BEFORE 1948. Can you get that into your head? Did you even read what I posted? The Zionists were systematically targeting people because they were the "wrong" religion, they weren't Jewish so they had to be pushed off their land. What kind of fanatical Zionist zealot are you that you stupidly go back to 1948 when I already pointed out to you that Zionists had already been attacking well before that? And it is disgusting the way you distort what was happening. What happened was a response in the form of armed struggle against a racist regime that had ethnically cleansed 300,000 non-Jews and was continuing to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands more. It was not "seeking to annihilate Jews", it was a military response to the Zionist terrorism that was killing, injuring, violating and ethnically cleansing them. It is clear that you dishonestly attempt to play off the Holocaust to distort what the Zionists were doing. It is especially disgusting because the Zionists have absolutely no right to invoke the Holocaust to justify anything that they have done or are doing. With respect to the Holocaust, the Zionists contribute to the ongoing wrong where Shlomo Morel continues to escape justice. Israel and many Jewish Studies and Holocaust Studies Intellectuals should be ashamed of themselves. They are hypocrites! SEE: Shlomo Morel Must Stand Trial for Crimes Against Humanity and "The facts are true" "The facts are right" "The facts are iron-bound."

Faurisson petition

MrMyke asks about the Faurisson petition and provides a link to the text of the petition, "... have you read the petition Chomsky signed? In it Chomsky by signature calls Faurisson "respected” cites his "extensive research" and uses the words "strongly support". Hardly seems "misleading" then merely to say Chomsky supports Faurisson, yes?"

Text of petition:

“Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive independent historical research into the ‘Holocaust’ question. Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives. We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him. We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights. ” 

MrMyke, thank you for the link to the text. Reading the petition can you not see that your characterization of what the petition says is inaccurate and unfair? In the context of what you call "Holocaust Denial" you complain that "Chomsky by signature calls Faurisson "respected." But that is extremely misleading. Reading the petition we see that "respected" refers to Faurisson's work at the University of Lyon-2.

See: "Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. "

You complain that the petition cites Faurisson's "extensive research." Actually the petition refers to "extensive independent historical research" in a separate sentence. A fair reading of it means it is not referring to Faurisson's work at the University of Lyon-2 which is what the word "respected" was restricted to. The word "independent" makes that clear. The sentence reads, "Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive independent historical research into the "Holocaust" question." Omitting the word "independent" is misleading, is it not? Note that you are not the only one that I have seen drop that word. In fact Werner Cohn (http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html) omits the word and Rachel Neuwirth (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4157) cites Cohn's version.

If we apply the standard you seem to want to apply to others, for example David Irving, should you, Cohn, and Neuwirth be banished forever from public discourse because of your dishonesty?

And you complain that the petition "uses the words "strongly support"". The final sentence makes it clear what is supported in the petition: "We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights. ”

Note that Rachel Neuwirth also omits the final sentence that I just quoted! (see http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4157) The sentence that explicitly states what it is that is being supported, "Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom, and it demands that officials of the university and government "ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights."

Chomsky writes about Cohn, "That Cohn is a pathological liar is demonstrated by the very examples that he selects."

News Flash: I won the Mega Millions!

I got "4" and "19" and the MEGA BALL "22". That means I am a Sixth Prize Level Winner along with 5,529 other people. I won 10 bucks! Sweet.

This is great, I am on a roll. This Friday I am going for the First Prize level, wish me luck.

The details of the Irving/Lipstadt Trial are a lot more complicated than most people realize.

For example, Lipstadt did indeed spread a false report about Irving. Lipstadt writes in her current book, "After my book was published I learned that this report was indeed false." p72 "History on Trial"

Lipstadt is still misleading people about basic facts. At her talk at Barnes & Noble she talked about a Dachau survivor being grateful to her for fighting Irving in court. This gave the false impression that Irving denies Dachau! And to claim, as Lipstadt does, that Irving says "some Jews may have died, but just a few" is a malicious lie. Irving said on day 2 of the trial, "whether it was of the order of millions or not, I would hesitate to specify, but I would say it was certainly more than one million, certainly less than four million"

Lipstadt has a pattern of untruth. She pulled the comments off her blog complaining that some people were saying "that Irving did not lose the trial". Now that is just stupid, the woman distorts things. NO ONE posting comments on her blog said Irving didn't lose, what was said was that Irving should not have lost the trial. See the difference? Lipstadt's version is as dishonest as her term "Holocaust Denier"

There is such an immature, arrogant and dishonest approach by Lipstadt and others to this entire thing. On page 107 of her book we learn that one of her lawyers at her trial, Rampton, dishonestly acted like he could not remember the name of the Institute for Historical Review. Like a child Rampton asks Lipstadt, "Did it scare you when I could not remember its name?" Pretending not to remember is Rampton's game he reveals to Lipstadt, "this was my way of showing how insignificant an organization I think it is."

Lisptadt's campaign against C-SPAN is vicious and dishonest. She writes on her blog, " Finally, I was not trying to deny Irving a right to speak. I was simply refusing to be pushed into a debate which is no debate and with someone who is a proven liar. How can you debate a liar?"

First of all, C-SPAN was not asking her to debate Irving. Second, her damn book is about the trial with Irving, there is nothing wrong with C-SPAN wanting to show Irving talking about the trial too. All C-SPAN was trying to do was give its audience a chance to hear Irving's version of the trial. For God sakes this vindictive campaign against C-SPAN (the best thing on TV) is disgusting AND it is also hypocritical: In her book's notes p 312, Lipstadt writes "For Irving's version of his youth and his legal travails, see www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/PQ17Libel/Background220170.html" There are even more links to Irving's web site in the notes of her book, here is another from page 315: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Inner/Circle.html

And speaking of hypocrisy, are the intellectuals of Jewish Studies and Holocaust studies going to continue to sweep this under the rug?: At the end of World War II, thousands of Jews set up 1,255 concentration camps for German civilians -- German men, women, children and babies. There Jews beat, whipped, tortured and murdered the Germans. Lipstadt had the gall to refer to Jewish author John Sack as one of the "anti-Semites" and "neo-Nazis" for daring to write a book about the actions of the Jews who ran these concentration camps.

Troy writes, "yes, calling Irving a racist is a fair cop IMV; but Irving sued Lipstadt on more than just this"

It may be fair to call Irving a racist but not with regard to the libel trial because Irving didn't sue Lipstadt for calling him a racist. Irving sued over specific things Lipstadt had written, he didn't mention "racist" and I don't think she wrote that in her book. (she may or may not have but since Irving wasn't suing about it, it should not have been an issue at the trial and it was not fair to use it in the decision)

In fact in Irving's "Statement of Claim", "The Words Complained of" does not mention "racist" but the first thing Irving mentions in his complaint is the part of the book where Lipstadt writes that he had agreed to appear at that conference. Irving explains "The Natural or Ordinary Meaning of the Words Complained of" is that he was "agreeing to appear in public in support of and alongside violent and extremist speakers including representatives of the violent and extremist anti-Semitic Russian group Pamyat and of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and of the fundamentalist Islamic organization Hamas" and that a false report claiming he did libeled him.

The fact is Lipstadt was wrong on that point. She admits in her latest book, "I learned that this report was indeed false." p72 "History on Trial"

Why the Judge did not find in his favor on this point is beyond me. I think the Judge felt pressure with all this "history on trial" nonsense. The case was not about that but rather if Lipstadt had libeled him. Introducing this "racist" stuff when Irving was not suing about that was unfair in my opinion. Even racists can be libeled. Being a racist or not has nothing to do with if one has been libeled or not on the points Irving raised.

And what the hell does Lipstadt's term "dangerous" spokespersons for Holocaust denial supposed to mean? What exactly is "dangerous" about it even if he was denying the Holocaust? The woman is reckless.

American Mainstream Media is avoiding reporting on the AIPAC Scandal

A shake-up in the Jewish lobby (article from Haaretz which is an Israeli newspaper):
"The Web site of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the Israeli lobby in Washington, bears a quote from The New York Times, testifying that this is the most important organization in its influence on American's relations with Israel."

I was going to point this out too.

The Haaretz article continues: "In academic and political literature in the United States, as well as in the world media, AIPAC is usually referred to as the pressure group with the greatest influence on foreign policy in the U.S. capital, and as a model for lobbying activity in Congress and in the U.S. administration.

In spite of the sense of crisis in the wake of the ongoing FBI investigation of the leaking of security material to Israel, and the temporary dismissal of two senior workers, the lobby is attempting to broadcast an atmosphere of business as usual. "

and the media is playing along with that plan. As I pointed out, mainstream media is clearly reluctant to report on this scandal. Someone posting comments over at Media Matters resents my use of the term "scandal." In fact, the guy (or gal) resorts to calling me "nothing but a neo-nazi sympathizer in a $1.99 Chomsky fright mask" My crime, apparently, is using the term scandal "even before it rises to the level of a credible accusation." The guy ignores the fact that the Israeli press is reporting it, (and some American Jewish press like "Forward" and "The Jewish Journal")?and the fact is credible accusations have been made, that is what the grand jury is about! "Top officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have appeared before a grand jury and two senior staffers have been placed on paid leave" but the libelous commenter at Media Matters ignores these facts.

Another Haaretz article points out: AIPAC Probe / AIPAC works to preserve clout in U.S.
"In the seven months since Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin was accused of passing classified documents to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby has been struggling in two arenas: First, to extricate itself from the investigation without any indictments being issued, and second, to preserve its political clout in Washington's corridors of power.

The second arena is the more problematic one. "AIPAC has lost a lot of its power," says a Capitol Hill source who follows AIPAC closely. But the fact that the source refused to be identified by name means that AIPAC is still a force to be reckoned with in the capital's political industry."

Well exactly. This is an honest reporter, reporting the facts. Notice that this isn't an American news outlet but an Israeli one. In Israel, a reporter can report on these kinds of things. I would point out that the fact that mainstream media is reluctant to report on this scandal shows there is "still a force to be reckoned with" that influences what mainstream media covers. That should be obvious from a google news search of AIPAC. ( I will put the archived search results on my web site to illustrate the situation) And this isn't the only example of this servile reporting (or non-reporting in this case.)
The AP article is written conforming to an Israeli government agenda. The settlements are illegal regardless of what the Israeli government says.

"Maybe somebody could explain how this is "conservative misinformation." I'm failing to see the problem."

Media Matters apparently has an agenda beyond that. Notice that Media Matters apparently can't see a major defect of mainstream media, namely the servile reporting when it comes to Israel. Mostly it takes the form of not reporting things. A dramatic example of the way the media behaves is the current AIPAC scandal. Check this out: search AIPAC and notice that American mainstream media is avoiding this, notice how foreign press and Israeli press covers it but American press isn't. I have been searching this and finally the fine newspaper the Christian Science Monitor dared to report about the FBI probe of AIPAC but of course the rest of the media is avoiding it. Want to see something dramatic? Search AIPAC at the NEW YORK TIMES web site and notice that they haven't reported what is going on. Seems Media Matters suffers the same blind spot that the NYT does.

Media Matters has made themselves look bad by jumping on C-SPAN like this. C-SPAN is the BEST thing on TV, it is a shame that Media Matters-is doing this. C-SPAN did nothing wrong. It is outrageous for Lipstadt to think she can write a book about a trial between her and Irving and to insist that C-SPAN cannot show Irving talking about the trial too if they want to show Lipstadt. Lipstadt is dishonest when she refers to what C-SPAN wanted to do as a debate. C-SPAN was not asking Lisptadt to debate Irving.

Lipstand's term "Holocaust Denier" is a propaganda term, she knows damn well she is misleading people about what Irving actually thinks. In America we are supposed to value free speech. Media Matters, for God sakes, C-SPAN is the best thing on TV, would you please have some decency and leave it alone? And by the way, is everyone going to let someone actually accused of crimes against humanity get away with it because people are afraid to confront a certain agenda?