Sunday, December 31, 2006

discussions of Israel and Palestine

Paul in Berkeley complains about James Risser's diary on Kos: Should DailyKos ban all discussions of Israel and Palestine? Paul complains, "Because when they are ridiculously one-sided, as yours is, they are already pretty close to the bottom."

No Paul in Berkeley, the facts are the facts. Zionists resort to very ugly tactics all the time and they do it in order to abort discussion of the facts. If the facts are known, most Americans would not go along with these injustices. There is no excuse for calling people "anti-semitic" when they dare tell the truth about Israel. It is worse than calling someone a "racist" just because they think OJ Simpson is guilty of a double murder. And OJ Simpson DID brutally kill two people!

It isn't "one sided" to point that out!

"It is still difficult for many to believe that a deception of such magnitude is possible. Deceptions and false declarations have been the standard in the politics of the powerful, and certainly are in Israel's policy toward the Palestinians from the start." - Tanya Reinhart

The deceptions and ugly tactics used to hide the brutal facts about Israel are incredible. The media is extremely dishonest when it comes to Israel, they push falsehoods all the time. "In my entire experience with American journalism, I have never found anything as extreme, sustained, and omnipresent" - Alison Weir

What is one sided is the mainstream media when it comes to Israel, they are committing fraud for Israel all the time. There has been suppression of the fact that Israeli soldiers often intentionally murder and maim children.

Journalist Chris Hedges and others have witnessed Israeli troops intentionally murdering children. And what Hedges and others have witnessed has been documented by an Israeli human rights group and has been confirmed by Israeli soldiers admissions. Physicians for Human Rights USA, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem all confirm the Israeli policy of targeting civilians.

An Israeli Jew Tells the Truth About The 'Anti-Semitism" Trick

Shulamit Aloni appeared on Democracy Now. Shulamit Aloni is a former Knesset member who headed the Meretz Party in Israel. She was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy NOW!

Amy Goodman asked her what she thought of the fact that often when people speak out against Israel policies they get labeled "anti-Semitic". Shulamit Aloni answered "well it is a trick, we always use it."

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

The continuing BS from AP

The continuing BS from AP

Christopher Torchia of the AP writes an article saying "the deaths of six U.S. soldiers pushed the American toll beyond the number of victims in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." The article is given the title "U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Exceeds Sept. 11 Count" and gets widely circulated, reported on AOL for example.

Christopher Torchia writes:

"President Bush has said that the Iraq war is part of the United States' post-Sept. 11 approach to threats abroad. Going on offense against enemies before they could harm Americans meant removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, pursuing members of al-Qaida and seeking regime change in Iraq, Bush has said."

What Christopher Torchia fails to mention is that even President Bush has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Christopher Torchia also writes:

"Democratic leaders have said the Bush administration has gotten the U.S. bogged down in Iraq when there was no evidence of links to the Sept. 11 attacks"

Christopher Torchia fails to mention that it is not just Democrats that say there was no evidence of links between the Sept. 11 attacks and Iraq.

Newsday's article "U.S. death toll in Iraq exceeds number of deaths on 9/11" uses the same AP crap: "The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, according to an Associated Press count on Tuesday. ... he deaths raised the number of troops killed to 2,974 since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks claimed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania."

Newsday can't do the responsible thing and point out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The way Newsday and others are reporting this milestone continues to push the misconception that attacking Iraq had something to do with responding to the 9/11 attacks.

The Continuing BS from AP and the MSM about Iraq and 9/11

UPDATE: Looks like AP sent out a new article by someone else about the same topic, the increase in deaths, in fact it looks like a replacement article since the link to the old story goes it it. This one says it is written by Lauren Frayer, Associated Press Writer. It has a title that no longer connects Iraq and 9/11: "U.S. soldiers' death toll climbs in Iraq" and Lauren Frayer makes this point: "There has been no direct evidence of links between Saddam's regime and the Sept. 11 attacks" THAT is what should have been said in the original article! By the way, the damage has been done by the original article because TV and other major media ran with the idea that Christopher Torchia's article pushed and they are not doing clarifications on TV. See this talked about in: Journalistic Malpractice: Iraq, 9/11 and US support of Israel

Covert Actions Against American Citizens Living in America

Members of the Church Committee which investigated the FBI's COINTELPRO talk about covert actions against American citizens living in America.

These clips come from "Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans" which was held September 21, 2006 and was shown on C-SPAN

Walter D. Huddleston (D) - U.S. Senator, Kentucky
Walter Mondale (D) - U.S. Senator, Minnesota
Frederick A. Schwartz - Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice

A panel titled "Who's Watching the Spies: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans - A Look Back at the Church Committee Report" discussed the work of the U.S. Senate Church Committee. The committee uncovered episodes in which the government spied on Americans and drafted many of the laws central to the current debates regarding warrantless wiretaps. Former Vice President Walter Mondale and Senator Walter Huddleston were members of the Church Committee. Fred Schwartz was chief counsel to the committe. The full name of the committee was the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activity (1975-1976).

The above video is about 12 minutes long, the full talk on C-SPAN was 1 hour, 26 minutes: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans

Also see this post: What the FBI did to American citizens is beyond what most people realize today.

Monday, December 25, 2006

What the FBI did to American citizens is beyond what most people realize today.

What the FBI did to American citizens is beyond what most people realize today.

COINTELPRO discussed with Former Vice President Walter Mondale, Walter Huddleston and others. From the Church Report on U.S. Spy Agencies.

"did you hear about the assasination of Fred Hampton?"
Noam Chomsky gives examples of COINTELPRO actions, Understanding Power p118

Also see this post:

Covert Actions Against American Citizens Living in America

Friday, December 22, 2006

outrage over U.S. support of Israel.

Mainstream Media, the 9/11 Commission Report, politicians and pundits have all downplayed and/or omitted the fact that the main motive for the 9/11 attacks was outrage over U.S. support of Israel. Here is a rare exception to the suppression, it comes from The Forward:

Bin Laden Aimed To Link Plot to Israel

Marc Perelman Fri. Jun 25, 2004

In an interim staff report released last week, the presidential commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks shed new light on the role of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Al Qaeda's worldview.

The disclosures seem to weaken Israeli claims that the issue was only a secondary priority for Osama bin Laden, and they could rekindle the debate about whether U.S. support for Israel is hindering national security.

In a 20-page report titled "Outline of the 9-11 Plot," the commission, which is to issue a final report at the end of July, describes bin Laden's willingness to time the attacks against America with two visits by Prime Minister Sharon, one in Jerusalem and one in Washington.

The report claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, or KSM, the alleged mastermind of the attacks who was arrested in March 2003 in Pakistan, told his U.S. captors that bin Laden "wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel."

This is why, according to KSM, bin Laden asked him to conduct the attacks "as early as mid-2000" in response to the outcry prompted by the visit of then-opposition leader Sharon to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the report states. Even though the Al Qaeda hijackers had barely arrived in the United States to take flight lessons, the Saudi renegade allegedly argued that it would be enough if they smashed planes to the ground without hitting specific targets. The report claims that KSM talked him out of the plan.

Bin Laden, however, reportedly asked him again a year later to hasten the preparations of the plot when he learned that Sharon, now prime minister, would visit the White House in June or July 2001, according to the report.

Once again KSM convinced him to wait, and the group eventually settled on September 11 after further debates about targets and timing, debunking the assumption that the details of the operation were planned long in advance.

In addition to bin Laden's reported interest in linking the attacks to Israel, the report also sheds light on the worldview of Al Qaeda operatives and its sympathizers.

It noted that Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian ringleader of the plot, chose the second week of September to ensure that Congress, "the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel" would be in session. Atta, who lived in Germany with several other hijackers, "denounced what he described as a global Jewish movement centered in New York City which, he claimed, controlled the financial world and the media."

In a chilling detail, the report also mentions that KSM indicated that Mullah Omar, the former Taliban leader in Afghanistan, "opposed [Al Qaeda's plan to attack] the United States for ideological reasons but permitted attacks against Jewish targets."

"Bin Laden, on the other hand, reportedly argued that attacks against the United States needed to be carried out immediately to support the insurgency in the Israeli-occupied territories and to protest the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia," according to the report.

The above article was reporting on an interim staff report. On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission released its public report. When reporting on the 9/11 Commission's report, only the Lexington Herald-Leader dared go with a headline that reflected the main point: the motives for the crime: "U.S. policy on Israel key motive."

When Terry McDermott's Jul 23, 2004 article was published in the LA Times, it didn't have the headline "U.S. policy on Israel key motive," whoever made the headline for McDermott's article used "New Plot Details Emerge" as the headline, which hid the main point of the article. The main point was only expressed when McDermott's article appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader with the headline: "U.S. policy on Israel key motive." In the Forward, the main point of Marc Perelman's article was expressed with the headline: "Bin Laden Aimed To Link Plot to Israel."

Also see:

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Former CIA Official Exposes Bush Administration Fraud

Former CIA Official Exposes Bush Administration Fraud
Leverett Former CIA Official Exposes Bush Administration Fraud
The Bush Administration is committing fraud again in order to sell another war to the American people. How much fraud do we allow the Bush Administration to commit before we start impeachment proceedings?

Once again spineless cowards in our intelligence agencies are allowing the Bush Administration to commit fraud in order to start another war.

Tell your politicians to do their job to uphold the Constitution and to start impeachment proceedings immediately.

Flynt Leverett worked as a senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, the NSC, and he was a CIA analyst. Leverett reveals that he has been censored by the White House for purely political reasons.

Flynt Leverett and his wife wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times but the White House threatened him with criminal prosecution in order to prevent him from publishing his article. Leverett explains that the Bush Administration is abusing its power in order to suppress his article about Iran because they don't want the recent history focused on now. They are trying to control the public debate with the obvious motive to sell a war on Iran. The information that the Bush Administation is preventing from being published in the New York Times Op-Ed reveals that Iran has been cooperating with the US in Afghanistan and had offered to make a deal with the US.

The Bush Administration is claiming that the Op-Ed "contains classified information" even though all the info had already been cleared by the CIA and has been publicly available.

Leverett explains that the White House claim is fraudulent. He also says that people in the intelligence agency who know better are not prepared to speak truth to power. Once again spineless cowards in our intelligence agencies are allowing the Bush Administration to commit fraud in order to start another war. Please watch the video.

Flynt Leverett's report: Dealing with Tehran

See links that show that the Bush Administration has committed fraud before. See background information on the fraud committed by the Bush Administration to get us into the Iraq War:

The Problem Was Not "Faulty Intelligence," the Problem Was Dishonestly Selecting And Omitting Intelligence

Senate Hearing on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence

US Intelligence About Iraq Didn't Really Fail, It Was Manipulated

Beyond all reasonable doubt, the Bush Administration is guilty of the high crime of lying our nation into war.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Dennis Kucinich for President 2008

Announcement of Candidacy

Dennis Kucinich for President 2008

Dennis Kucinich for President 2008The only Democrat running for President who has a real plan to end the war and bring the troops home. Dennis Kucinich for President 2008

Kucinich is the only member of the House and the Senate running for President who has consistently voted against funding for the war, based on a principled opposition.

Kucinich was against the war then. Kucinich is against it now. A leader must have not just hindsight, but foresight.

Transcript of this video:
"At this moment, people's trust in government is on the line. Trust in the Democratic Party is on the line. What does it say if only one month after the voters gave us control of Congress on the issue of Iraq, that we turn around and say we will keep funding the war?

We Democrats were put back in power to bring some sanity back to our nation. We are expected to take a stand. We are expected to assert our constitutional power as a co-equal branch of government. We are expected to do what we said we would do: Get out of Iraq and bring the troops home.

I am not going to stand by and watch thousands more of our brave young American men and women killed in Iraq, or permanently injured, while our leaders are ready to take action to keep the war going.

This is the moment to end our war against Iraq, this is the moment to bring our troops home.

I know what it is like to take a stand. I know what it is like to put my career on the line. Today, I am prepared to put my career on the line once again to save my community and my nation from the devastating effects of more war.

Therefore, I am announcing my candidacy for President of the United States, with the intention of rallying the American people to the cause of our troops in the field, to the cause of stopping more American families from suffering, to the cause of ending a deepening tragedy in Iraq, to the cause of repairing America's reputation in the world, to the cause of the dreams of people in my own neighborhood and my own city.

I fully expect to be win, because when the American people hear this clarion call for a new and true direction, this call to confirm their intent, their power, I am confident that they will respond as powerfully, as they did just one month ago, to demand that America quickly change course in Iraq and to demand a leader who will make it happen."

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Time Magazine Sucks

Time Magazine asks YouTubers to pick who they want to be "Person of the Year." I think it is a lame idea but an opportunity to look at the kinds of things Time Magazine has done and is doing now.

War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death Norman Solomon, author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, points out that "The Sept. 25 edition of Time Magazine illustrates how the U.S. news media are gearing up for a military attack on Iran." - Media Tall Tales for the Next War

Norman Solomon noted the above and in his article, When Journalists Report for Duty, Solomon points out the ugly essay, "The Case for Rage and Retribution," written by Time regular Lance Morrow.

Time published Morrow's ugly essay the day after 9/11. Here is part of it: "A day cannot live in infamy without the nourishment of rage. Let's have rage. What's needed is a unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury--a ruthless indignation that doesn't leak away in a week or two, wandering off into Prozac-induced forgetfulness or into the next media sensation (O.J.... Elian... Chandra...) or into a corruptly thoughtful relativism (as has happened in the recent past, when, for example, you might hear someone say, "Terrible what he did, of course, but, you know, the Unabomber does have a point, doesn't he, about modern technology?")."

Notice Morrow is manipulatively discouraging the public from even thinking about what the motive was for the 9/11 attack. He wants unthinking rage and the motive swept under the rug.

"Time magazine correspondent Laurence Zuckerman and a colleague found serious evidence of Contra links to cocaine trafficking, but their story was blocked from publication by top editors. A senior editor admitted privately to Zuckerman: "Time is institutionally behind the Contras. If this story were about the Sandinistas and drugs, you'd have no trouble getting it in the magazine." (The N.Y Times and Washington Post both endorsed aid to the Contra army, despite massive documentation from human rights monitors that they targeted civilians for violence and terror.)" - Jeff Cohen

"Time magazine's senior international correspondent Aparisim Ghosh argued against U.S. troop withdrawal (12/11/06) in favor of, among other things, "30,000 more coalition soldiers and a real willingness to thrash the Shi'ite militias, something they've avoided so far," a process that "may take five more years. But if the U.S. leaves sooner, Iraq will devolve into an even bigger mess." Speaking of military and foreign policy experts, it's not clear how many would see a declaration of war against the Shi'ite majority's militias would accomplish anything beyond increasing the 62 percent of Shi'ite Iraqis who already approve of attacks on U.S. forces (PIPA, 9/27/06)." - Withdrawing From Debate on Iraq Public's view too 'extreme' for media discussion

Time Covers Coulter: Magazine's Cover Story a Sloppy, Inaccurate Tribute to Far-Right Pundit "a puff piece that gave Coulter a pass on her many errors and vicious, often bigoted rhetoric."

Time Magazine has a history of not standing up for what is right. Take a look, as FAIR points out, at what they said about Martin Luther King:

Martin Luther King gave a speech called "Beyond Vietnam." In that speech, King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

"From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, King said, the U.S. was "on the wrong side of a world revolution." King questioned "our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America," and asked why the U.S. was suppressing revolutions "of the shirtless and barefoot people" in the Third World, instead of supporting them.

You haven't heard the "Beyond Vietnam" speech on network news retrospectives, but national media heard it loud and clear back in 1967 - and loudly denounced it. Time magazine called it "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi."" - The Martin Luther King You Don't See on TV

Re: TIME Person of the Year 2006

Sunday, December 10, 2006

President Carter is correct about the apartheid.

President Carter is correct about the apartheid. Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, points out that "the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation, and in the future they will turn the Jews into a minority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River."

The Smear Tactics Never End

I posted the following comment in response to John Amato's post The other Jimmy Carter C-SPAN call (satire):

"Seems like the comedy writer's attempt to discredit Carter for daring to write a book critical of the Israeli government's actions. The media were eager to spread Kenneth W. Stein's charges BUT if you look, he doesn't give any examples that have anything to do with his allegation that the book is "one sided."

The ironic thing is Carter's book has Zionist propaganda in it which serves the Israel agenda, for example on page 57. See how misrepresentative this is and how it omits key facts so that it ends up painting a picture as if the "Jewish community" was being reasonable and that they were "attacked." But the fact is, the 1947 UN plan was a proposal and it was the democratic right of 67% of the population to turn down such an unfair and crazy proposal.

This is a critical fact often omitted 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.

In practice, Zionists did not accept the UN Partition Plan. Zionists seized areas beyond the proposed Jewish State and did not recognize the International Zone. Using force and terrorism months before May 1948, Jews seized land beyond the UN proposed borders. The UN Plan was used as a pretense for taking over most of Palestine."

Then I see my post was removed and this was in its place:

"[Deleted. Take the bigotry elsewhere] Edited By Siteowner"

I then posted this response:

"Take the bigotry elsewhere"

Take down that comment connected with my name or you will hear from my lawyer. There was not a damn thing "bigoted" in my post and it is libelous for you to claim was. You can not label the listing of historical facts as "bigotry" just because you don't like them.

You need to explain what in God's name you think is "bigotry" in my post.

Are you ignorant of the definition of the word Zionist? Are you ignorant of the fact that 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.

What you need to do is stop libeling people immediately.

Chomsky Doesn't Say That The Israeli Lobby Has No Influence

Chomsky Doesn't Say That The Israeli Lobby Has No Influence

Alam: Often the so-called 'war on terror' is depicted by its American supporters as a civilizational war, pitting an advanced, upright nation against a sea of savage, senseless, Islamic barbarians. This depiction is interesting because it has always resonated well with a crucial U.S. ally whose role in this endeavor has been controversial and, to many, vague: Israel. You argue in Hegemony or Survival that Israel "has virtually no alternative to serving as a US base in the region and complying with U.S. demands."

Others, however, particularly in the Arab world, see Israel as using the financial clout of the pro-Israel lobby in the US to press its own demands. Some Israeli dissidents cite not financial but ideological influence: prefacing a summary of interviews with William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Thomas Friedman, Ari Shavit of the Israeli daily Haaretz, wrote that "the ardent faith [in war against Iraq] was disseminated by a small group of 25 to 30 neoconservative intellectuals, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals…" Even the non-neoconservative Friedman, according to Shavit, justified the Iraq war as a replay of Jenin on a world scale. Do you consider it possible that, precisely because Israel depends so much on US support, pro-Israel intellectuals argue for US military action against the Arab world? Or is the role of neoconservatism and intellectuals like Kristol and Krauthammer overblown and only a subtext to a larger point?

Chomsky: It is impossible to give a measure to the influence of the Israeli lobby, but in my opinion it is more of a swing factor than an independently decisive one. It is important to bear in mind that it is not neoconservatives, or Jewish. Friedman, for example, is a liberal in the US system. The union leadership, often strong supporters of Israeli crimes, are protypical liberals, not neocons. The self-styled "democratic socialists" who modestly call themselves "the decent left" have compiled an unusually ugly record in support of Israeli government actions ever since Israel's massive victory in 1967, which won it many friends in left-liberal circles, for a variety of reasons. The Christian right is a huge voting bloc, plainly not Jewish, and in fact to a significant extent anti-Semitic, but welcomed by the government of Israel and its supporters because they support Israel's atrocities, violence, and aggression, for their own reasons. It is a varied and large group, which happens also to constitute a substantial part of the intellectual elite, hence the media elite, so of course there is ideological influence. However, these groups rarely distance themselves far from what they know to be authentic power: state-corporate power. If US government policy would shift, they would shift along with it, maybe with some snapping at the heels of the powerful, but never daring too much. That has been fairly consistent in the past, and I think there is good reason to expect similar behavior in the future. Privilege and rewards do not come from confronting power, but by serving it, perhaps with some complaints at the margins while pouring out lies and slanders against anyone who strays a few millimeters to far from doctrinal orthodoxy, a primary function of respectable intellectuals throughout history. Particularly since its 1967 victory, state power has generally regarded Israel as a very important "strategic asset," by now virtually an offshore military base and militarized high-tech center closely linked to the US and major regional US allies, particularly Turkey. That opens the way for the ideological influence to exert itself - lined up with real power. The story is far more complex than anyone can describe in a few words, but my feeling is that the essentials are pretty much like that. That is true of domestic lobbies quite generally, in a state capitalist society with very close ties between state and corporate power, a very obedient intellectual class, and a narrow political spectrum primarily reflecting the interests of power and privilege.

Alam: Israel's rhetoric and actions appear to be pulling in opposite directions. Its actions clearly point to greater brutalization and destruction of the Palestinians, as evidenced by continued construction of illegal settlements, erection of a separation wall which annexes more Palestinian land, and military raids leading to the death of innocents on a weekly basis. And yet some in the official establishment, from dissenting Refusenik air force pilots and special forces to former Shinbet officials and senior Likud officials like Ehud Olmert, are openly questioning the occupation and calling for unilateral withdrawal to preserve the "Jewish-democratic character" of Israel in the face an impending demographic crisis whereby Arabs will outnumber Jews in Eretz Israel.

Given that Zionism is, as Norman Finkelstein writes in Image and Reality, "grounded in its pre-emptive right to establish a Jewish state in Palestine - a right that, allegedly, superseded the aspirations of the indigenous population," do you think the pragmatists advocating withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank can trump those who still want to pretend the indigenous Palestinians are, as Israel's first president Chaim Weizmann once said, "a matter of no consequence"?

Chomsky: I think it would be very likely to happen if "the boss-man called `partner'" - as more astute Israeli commentators refer to the US - were to change course and inform them that the time has come to obey the overwhelming international consensus that the US government has been blocking for 30 years. The "demographic crisis" is impelling hawks in the same direction. The "refuseniks" and Israeli solidarity groups are brave and honorable people, who deserve very bit of support we can give them. Their inability to have much of an impact is our fault, not theirs. No group in Israel can gain much credibility within unless it has strong support from the society of the boss-man.

Alam: Professor Chomsky, thank you very much for your time and responses.

On Bush, the Left, Iraq, and Israel
Noam Chomsky interviewed by M. Junaid Alam
Left Hook, February 4, 2004

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Smears Against Carter

Mainstream media eagerly passed on Kenneth W. Stein's charges against President Carter's book. But what specifically are these charges, I looked into it and have to wonder, is this the best they can do?

"Kenneth W. Stein had sent a blistering letter of resignation Monday to officials at the Carter Center in Atlanta charging that the former president's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," had factual errors, invented segments and, most seriously, "copied materials not cited."" - allegations over new Carter book include 'unusually similar' maps

Yet where is the beef? Look how they let Stein get away with making charges against Carter yet what examples does he give??? They allow him to smear the book even though Stein writes "In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins."

[now remember, Stein is claiming a "one-sided nature of the book" YET the ONLY examples that I have been able to find Stein give have absolutely NOTHING to do with "one-sidedness" or "bias"]

They NYT played along as if there was something to it yet look at this: "Mr. Stein declined to detail all the inaccuracies he found, saying he was still documenting them for a planned review of the book; but he did offer a few examples." - Former Aide Parts With Carter Over Book

[OK , so now let's see what these examples are]

"Mr. Carter, he said, remembers White House staff members in 1990 being preoccupied by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when the former president tried to describe to them talks he had had with Middle Eastern leaders. But the White House briefings occurred in the spring, Mr. Stein said, and the invasion of Kuwait was not until August.

"You can't write history simply off the top of your head and expect it to be credible," he said."

[ WHAT?!? Whether or not Carter is wrong on this point, this example HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Israel as far as a supposed "one-sided nature" of Carter's book, IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM BEEN CONSTRUED AS A "BIAS AGAINST ISRAEL". What the hell would the above example mean? THIS is an example Stein gives and the media are running with this? THIS is the kind of thing, if true, that Stein needs to resign over?!? ]

"Mr. Stein also said he had been struck by parts of Mr. Carter’s book that seemed strikingly similar to a work by a different author, but he would not disclose the details."

"in a telephone interview Thursday evening, Stein offered a narrower criticism. "It appears that at least two maps that came out of the Carter book were or are very closely similar, or unusually similar, to maps that were produced and published in Dennis Ross' book The Missing Peace,' " Stein said."

Stein still isn't giving ANY examples that would indicate a "one-sided nature" against Israel. We find out near the bottom of this article and the writer notes that the Stein's criticism isn't making a case that points to a "one-sided nature."

"But, in a telephone interview Thursday evening, Stein offered a narrower criticism. "It appears that at least two maps that came out of the Carter book were or are very closely similar, or unusually similar, to maps that were produced and published in Dennis Ross' book The Missing Peace,' " Stein said.

WHAT? Maps look similar? They are not a copy, it isn't a copyright infringement, so nothing was done wrong. If maps are depicting the same thing then they should look similar. This is really a desperate attempt to smear Carter. It is a shame that mainstream media gives Stein's smears so much millage. And again, what in the world does the issue of if the maps in Carter's book were copied from the pro-Israel Dennis Ross' book have to do with a supposed "one-sidedness" with regard to Palestine?

Notice how it works, we hear smears against Carter in the media and people that who don't look into the details, that is all they hear. But the details that Stein gives have nothing to do with whether or not Carter's book is "biased."

The facts are even worse than President Carter reveals.

The facts are even worse than President Carter reveals. Unfortunately, some Zionist propaganda has made its way into his book. I have not read most of the book yet but I did find this misrepresentation on page 57: "In 1947 the United Nations approved a partition plan for Palestine. A Jewish state was to include 55 percent of this territory, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were to be internationalized as holy sites, and the remainder of the land was to constitute an Arab state. The Jewish Agency (an official group that represented the Jewish community in Palestine to the British Mandate) and other Zionist representatives approved the plan, but Arab leaders were almost unanimous in their opposition. When Jews declared their independence as a nation, the Arabs attacked militarily but were defeated."

If you look at the facts you can see how misrepresentative this is and how it omits key facts so that it ends up painting a picture as if the "Jewish community" was being reasonable and that they were "attacked." Please review this page I put together:
Palestine and Israel History 1947-1948 UN Plan and the Zionist Agenda

The fact that the rights of the majority in Palestine, which was non-Jewish, 67% of the population, were violated is suppressed in the media. Why in the world would anyone think it is legitimate for 33% of a population (the "Jewish community") to seize land and carve up the land into 7 parts? Why in the world should 67% of a population ever accept that? These population stats, which highlight just how undemocratic the UN proposal really was, are almost never mentioned in US media.

Fact is the 1947 UN plan was a proposal and it was the democratic right of 67% of the population to turn down such an unfair and crazy proposal.

In practice, Zionists did not accept the UN Partition Plan. Zionists seized areas beyond the proposed Jewish State and did not recognize the International Zone. Using force and terrorism months before May 1948, Jews seized land beyond the UN proposed borders. The UN Plan was used as a pretense for taking over most of Palestine.

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.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

More New York Times Journalistic Malpractice: Bias For Israel As Usual

More New York Times Journalistic Malpractice: Bias For Israel As Usual

"A front-page New York Times article by Greg Myre" misleads readers. As FAIR points out, "had Myre taken the journalistically obvious step of interviewing independent experts on international law and human rights" readers would have known that Israel was
not exempt "from its legal duty to minimize civilian casualties."

"In fact, Myre incorrectly wrote that Amnesty "did not address the accusation that Hezbollah hid its militants among Lebanese civilians." Though Amnesty's initial September 14 report stated that it did not have enough evidence to take a position on that subject, the group treated the question extensively in its recent November 21 report (readily accessible on the Internet), which pointed out that, under the Geneva Conventions, Hezbollah's actions do not release Israel from its obligations under international law."

In attempting to cover for Israel and hide the facts, Myre mislead NYT readers when he selectively quoted Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth by omitting the lead paragraph of Kenneth Roth's op-ed which undermined Myre's case.

Kenneth Roth wrote, "Why did so many Lebanese civilians lose their lives to Israeli bombing? The government line is that the IDF was doing the best it could, but these deaths were the result of Hizbullah hiding its rockets and fighters among civilians. But that assertion doesn't stand up to the facts." Roth also wrote that "under international humanitarian law, just as Israeli abuses in Lebanon did not justify reprisals against Israeli civilians, so Hizbullah's war crimes did not justify Israel shirking its duty to protect Lebanese civilians."" - New York Times on Israeli War Crimes
No independent analysis of pro-government spin

ACTION: Please ask the New York Times to revisit the issue of war crimes in the war in Lebanon, providing reporting on the relevant international law. Also ask the Times to correct the record on Amnesty International's stance on Israel's responsibility toward civilians.

New York Times
Byron Calame, Public Editor
Phone: (212) 556-7652

New York Times Corrections

AP Erases Video of Israeli Soldier Shooting Palestinian Boy

AP Erases Video of Israeli Soldier Shooting Palestinian Boy
"Alison Weir - In the midst of journalism’s “Sunshine Week” – during which the Associated Press and other news organizations are valiantly proclaiming the public’s “right to know” – AP insists on conducting its own activities in the dark, and refuses to answer even the simplest questions about its system of international news reporting." - Bias and Distorted Media Coverage
AP Erases Video of Israeli Soldier Shooting Palestinian Boy

Monday, December 04, 2006

President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN

See video: President Carter talks about AIPAC and Israel on C-SPAN
Call-In In Depth with Jimmy Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter, author of a new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, is interviewed from his home in Plains, Georgia. He responds to a caller who asks questions concerning pressure put on the US political system and the resulting support of Israel. The caller refers to author James Bamford's book A Pretext For War and he asks President Carter about AIPAC and other pressure groups within the US.

President Carter reveals the intense pressures used to prevent public discussion of the facts concerning Israel. He admits that some Universities have actually turned him away, telling him that discussing Israel was "too controversial!"

The caller mentions this article which says: "The strict immigration policy that Israel is adopting with these laws completely ignores the breadth of possibilities stemming from ties of love and human relationships. Henceforth, the government recommends, through legislation, it is advisable to fall in love only with Jews, or to give up living in Israel." - Fall in love only with Jews by Haaretz Editorial

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Thomas Friedman is truly one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals

"Friedman is truly one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals burdening this country. Yet he is, of course, still today, one of the most universally revered figures around" "the nation's preeminent centrist foreign policy genius." - "The Tom Friedman disease consumes Establishment Washington" is a good article but Glenn Greenwald doesn't mention Friedman's lies serving Israel's agenda.Thomas Friedman

Who is Thomas Friedman?
Here is a comment I posted on Glenn Greenwald's blog:
Thomas Friedman is a very, very, rich man who carelessly harms the little guy and he is a racist against non-Jewish Palestinians. And he has the audacity to lie to the American people about the worst attack against America in history in order to serve Israel's agenda. And he wants those who dare talk about the 9/11 motives identified by the government and put on a State Department list. Here is proof:

"Throughout his journalistic career, Friedman has been married to Ann Bucksbaum -- heiress to a real-estate and shopping-mall fortune now estimated at $2.7 billion. When the couple wed back in 1978, according to The Washingtonian article, Friedman became part of "one of the 100 richest families in the country."" On the Tim Russert show, Friedman admitted "he fervently advocated for a major trade agreement without knowing what was in it." - "It's reasonable to ask whether Friedman -- perhaps the richest journalist in the U.S. -- might be less evangelical for 'globalization' if he hadn't been so wealthy"

On Democracy Now, Amy Goodman exposes Friedman's racism and his call for the State Department to identify those who talk about the terrorists motives. (because he doesn't want the public to know we are attacked mainly over the policy of supporting Israel.)

"New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has urged the U.S. government to create blacklists of condemned political speech--not only by those who advocate violence, but also by those who believe that U.S. government actions may encourage violent reprisals. The latter group, which Friedman called "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists," includes a majority of Americans, according to recent polls." - A New Blacklist for "Excuse Makers"

Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives. Friedman claims, "the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street. " (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and " Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world. " (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example that disproves what Friedman wrote: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998

Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Friedman is probably the most powerful writer who deceives the public with Israel propaganda, we must not shy away from pointing this out because Freidman and others are putting our lives at risk.

Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East