Most of the time we are focusing on the NYT or the Washington Post whose bias towards Israel is on the subtle side but this editorial, "Bam’s Mideast mess," in super Zionist Rupert Murdoch’s NY Post that is targeted for the less literate reader could have been published in Israel.
Gilo is a Jewish-populated neighborhood of the Israeli capital that almost certainly would remain part of Israel even if Jerusalem were divided in a peace deal. So building homes there in no way compromises the area’s status in any talks.
But here’s where Obama’s meddling got truly worrisome: The mere fact of construction, he said, “embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.”
By that, the president seems to be warning (or threatening) a new intifada against Israel if it doesn’t make even more unilateral concessions. He’s suggesting Israel refrain from perfectly legal and understandable moves — just to avoid violence.
No one ever suggests that Israel renounce violence.
By both continuing to seize Palestinian property and by persecuting leaders of nonviolent movements (eg, Mohammad Othman) Israel is provoking Palestinian violence, which it desperately needs in order to justify more oppression in the name of its “security.”
Nor do they ever demand that Israel ‘recognise’ Palestine.
I don’t know. Is this any worse than some of the hysteria that Bret Stephens routinely pumps out in the WSJ?
Probably less literate.
Military solutions to political problems causing severe hardship on the ground; what a great war and spy business the USA and Israel are in–the booming matrix of control to support the systems of inequality around the world–now, here’s an expose of Doctor
Frankenstein’s lab:
link to youtube.com
And here’s more directly related to Obama and his top pick, Rahm Immanuel:
link to veteranstoday.com
Top ten companies to boycott when you do your Xmas shopping this year:
link to sabbah.biz
I wish Obama was a more clever man. He might have seen these attacks coming. Did he really think he was going to have even half as easy a time handling Presidential affairs as Bush?
Isn’t the Post continuing to lose money with its racist newpaper? I think it costs 50 cents now. Or I could always buy the alternative, Zuckerman’s Daily News. At least at the low cost end of the reading spectrum, I know I can always have it pro-Israel either way.
The Daily News did publish the rabbi sexual abuse this year, the one where he sodomized his daughter. Really sad that he could act as lawyer for himself and cross examine his children in Brooklyn. How that missed the major newspaper headlines is baffling.
<>
It has never been obvious, however, what Murdoch’s ideological and political ambitions were. A brilliant businessman, he was generally right-wing—though his newspapers and networks hardly humored socially conservative sensibilities. His papers tended to endorse conservative candidates who had a good chance of winning. More than anything else, he seemed to relish his triumph over the British press unions. He was not an immigration restrictionist but didn’t share the neocon antipathy to them. In 1993, it took considerable effort by New York Post editorial-page editor Eric Breindel to persuade Murdoch that Rudy Giuliani was vastly superior to the incumbent David Dinkins as a candidate for mayor of New York. In one conversation I had with him (during my own brief tenure as Post editorial-page editor) about the paper’s foreign-policy positions, he told me, when the discussion had veered to Israel and the Middle East, “Well, it might not have been a good idea to create it [Israel], but now that it’s there, it has to be supported.” A splendidly ambiguous statement—perfectly consistent with a strong pro-Israel position, but not the sort of thing an American neoconservative would ever say. >>
link to amconmag.com
Murdoch is a regular attendee at major Jewish functions in New York and has been, at least twice, the recipient of “humanitarian of the year” award and last March was the recipient of the American Jewish Committee’s “Human Relations Award” Coming as it did, a month after the conclusion of Israel’s Gaza onslaught, Murdoch made it clear where he stood on the issue:
“My friends,” he said, ” I do not pretend to have all the answers to Gaza this
evening. But I do know this: The free world makes a terrible mistake if
we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.
“In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are:
cold-blooded killers who reject peace, who reject freedom and who rule
by the suicide vest, the car bomb and the human shield.
“Against such an enemy, I will not second-guess the decisions of a free
Israel defending her citizens. And I would ask all those who support
peace and freedom to do the same.”
That Murdoch supports Israel and that its supporters embrace him in turn needs to be seen for what it is, the recognition by both parties of the considerable power that each of them wields. Even Murdoch, with his overriding concern for the bottom line, would hesitate before taking on Israel and the Jewish establishment, in the US, in the UK, or his native Australia, and the latter, in turn, would have cause to worry, if Murdoch would allow his reporters and editorial writers to tell the truth about Israel.
Yeah, those quotes don’t surprise me. It is an alliance born in “recognition of the considerable power each of them yields.” Then there’s this: link to archive.newsmax.com
about his son James’ apparently quite different views.
I missed that and while encouraging I expect that if the past is prologue he will end up like Billy Graham, like Marlon Brando, and like Strobe Talbott, doing a tearful mea culpa while on bended knee before the reigning supreme power. When Talbott was appointed to the position of Deputy Secretary of State by Bill Clinton in 1994, he was reminded by the AIPAC-alerted Senate committee that in 1981, while an editor at TIME, he had written a scathing attack on the notion of Israel as a ‘strategic asset,” and cast it for what it really was and always has been, “an outright liability.” With Joe Biden at his side as his spiritual advisor, Talbott recanted. It was probably one of the more disgusting episodes in the Senate’s fairly disgusting history but it seems to have served as a lesson to the political pundits who have arrived on the scene since.
link to nytimes.com
His original article: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924802,00.html
15 years ago, a significant USA politician gets in hot water for stating the obvious fact in public that American Jews have very disproportionate sway in USA policy? So, what’s new?
In union there is strength. The Zionist lobby picks off dissenters one by one because no one can count on anyone to have their back.
Billy Graham always supported Israel. It was the liberal Jews whom he cursed out in the taped conversations with Nixon. And the Zionists really got back at Marlon Brando, they put sugar in all his food and turned him into a big fat person, so that Francis Ford Coppola had to shoot him in close ups. The horror.
Sorry wondering but you’re ill informed. Graham praised Israel publicly because it was politically necessary to do so. When he said to Nixon that when he was elected to a second term, “you have to break the Jewish stranglehold on the media,” (to which Nixon who also privately disliked Jews agreed), Graham was not referring to liberal Jews, he was referring to who actually owned or dominated the media who just happened, by a coincidence, to be Jewish. Brando’s crime was calling on Jews in Hollywood to do something about the racism which some of them were injecting into their pictures. Hollywood, of course, played a major role in creating and perpetuating the racist stereotypes that still persist today.
True. What passes for the “Left” and the solidarity movement, such as it is, pay little attention to what is going on in Washington so those who have the courage to take on Israel or AIPAC find they have no one watching their back. In fact, quite the opposite. When someone who has clearly been targeted for defeat by the Zionists countrywide such as was the case with Cynthia McKinney in Georgia and Earl Hilliard in Alabama in 2002, you find certain “friends” of the Palestinians such as Prof. Stephen Zunes looking for every excuse to prove that it was not “the lobby” that did them in while most of the rest remain silent.
I think it’s just pure intellectual laziness on the part of people like Zunes.
Perhaps in the case of Chomsky, it’s more than that. It could be tactics or dogma or maybe even his own sense of ‘White Man’s Guilt’.
Err sorry, meant to write – ‘White Man’s Burden’.
It’s not laziness in Zunes’s case. He doesn’t like me to say it (and told me so) but I believe it has something to do with what one might call career enhancement. In Nov, 1989, he wrote one of the first and best articles about “the lobby” for the Progressive, entitled,”Israel’s Blank Check,” but for someone trying to get a professorial position in American academia, speaking about the lobby was not the wisest thing to do.
I have debated Zunes twice on this issue and he has become almost hysterical in denying the lobby’s power. On the other hand, he has referred to Israel as “an example of global affirmative action,” and has said that he “will be a Zionist until there is no more anti-semitism.”
Here’s a link to the first debate: www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=12876
I’m particularly vexed with the Congressional Black Caucus, which could be a powerful force if it weren’t mired in corruption like the rest of Congress. They let McKinney go under the bus, they let Rev Wright take the rap. As individuals, they are vulnerable, but if they would only act in solidarity they hold a race card to trump the Zionists’.
And it’s a shame, because African Americans are on their way to further exploitation as a result of the weakness of the caucus. The caging list voting fraud in Florida went through fairly unimpeded (though, not without a fight but the Caucus was unable to persuade the Senate of 2000, the only people with Congressional power to do so, notably as the Senate had not a single African American member at the time). The black middle class was targeted the most out of any sector of American society by the big banks for toxic loans, and have therefore suffered the hardest in that crisis. And African American communities continue to suffer from economic marginalization and deprivation.
I think some day soon African Americans will wake up to the way in which they are still being exploited by our society. And woe to the US if they are deprived of their political avenue toward getting that addressed.
Donna Edwards is being targeted now, and it remains to be seen if her colleagues will defend her.
In the meantime, they continue to vote for resolutions defending a racist, segregationist, Jim Crow nation, the ally of apartheid South Africa.
Re Donna Edwards, it remains to be seen if voters of whatever color who admire her courage and outspokenness on I/P will defend her.
There was a time when what should now be called the House Negro Caucus had some brave members, that is, those that were willing to speak out against Israeli arms trading with South Africa and on behalf of the Palestinians. They were never the majority and dependent as they were on the lobby’s money, they would fold time and again when it came to voting aid for Israel. One by one, the good ones got nailed by AIPAC while the so-called progressive movement looked the other way. John Conyers was once a stalwart in the Palestinians’ corner but eventually he, too, saw the handwriting on the wall and learned how to bend his knee to AIPAC while keeping his mouth shut. Maxine Waters has lately taken some anti-AIPAC votes which is maybe why she is being investigated for an ethics violation and Barbara Lee in Berkeley has piped up a bit after being criticized in the local paper for bending over for Israel.
Well, what you’re describing is a consequence of the corruption of the Democratic Party as a whole, with which the Black Caucus ostensibly overlaps (or are there any African American Republican Representatives?) I wouldn’t lay the blame, at least not the lion’s share of it, at their feet.
I don’t think it’s escaped the notice of African Americans that their Congresspeople are the first and most aggressively pursued targets of the Zionist lobby. At least I hope it hasn’t — you wouldn’t exactly know anything about what African Americans in general think, given that the MSM doesn’t exactly give them much of a voice, and ironically, I personally have found the cultural barriers between Caucasian Americans and African Americans (in my hometown, particularly) harder to overcome even than barriers with immigrants, so I haven’t been able to really even find out on my own.
When it comes to self-preservation, these people are cowards, every one for themselves, when the true safety is in solidarity. A lot of African Americans were really pissed at Obama throwing Wright under the bus. They admired Wright, he spoke what they like to hear.
The caucus is the one group that could stand up to AIPAC on the race issue with near-impunity. AIPAC could not accuse this group of racism; the card is in the hands of the caucus. The evidence is all on the side of Israeli racism. The Israeli council on civil rights has just put out a report showing the growth in Israeli racism.
And for the most part, these reps serve a constituency that is least susceptible to Zionist pressure.
Wright didn’t just say what they liked to hear, he actually spoke no small amount of truth. Just ask Cynthia McKinney and, lately, Donna Edwards and Maxine Waters. I think they can speak a little bit about the process of political disenfranchisement in action.
Most of the Black media are independent in name only, relying, yes again, on contributions from local Jewish patrons to stay afloat (and that goes ditto for Black churches). A rare example of an independent Black publication that doesn’t genuflect to the Zionists is the San Francisco Bayview link to sfbayview.com
It competes with the longer running Sun-Reporter which even in the heyday of Israel’s arms trading with South Africa was afraid to run a story about a protest that I was organizing against that for fear of losing its wealthy Jewish patrons who could be counted on to buy whole tables at the paper’s annual dinner. The sad part about this is that the very old editor who told me this had been one of the organizers of the Pullman porters and back in 1934, he had worked with the ILWU in promoting the famous General Strike in San Francisco.