|
|
Blog Feeds
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
|
Pro-Israel Censorship on this side of the Atlantic, also national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Wednesday March 19, 2003 08:30 by joe ranii
 It is well known that supporters of Israel dominate the American media. However, people in Europe should be alert to the fact that the Israel lobby exists here also, and continually seeks to stifle information on what that country is up to.
The corporation said it had received more than 2,500 calls about the Correspondent documentary on BBC2, "Israel's Secret Weapon", which investigated Israel's undeclared nuclear programme. Viewers protested to the BBC by telephone and e-mail after the programme was switched from 7.15pm on Sunday because coverage of the Azores summit on Iraq overran. The documentary, which asked whether there were double standards in the world's treatment of Israel and Iraq, was strongly criticised by Jewish groups, including the British Board of Deputies, before its original screening time. But when it was suddenly replaced with an old documentary on windmills by the steeplejack-turned-celebrity Fred Dibnah, the BBC received a further flood of complaints that it had caved in to political pressure. The film was eventually shown on Monday at 11.20pm after an extended Newsnight on the Iraq crisis. Audience figures showed it drew one million viewers. The BBC refused to say how many of the calls were complaints but 300 phone calls and 720 e-mails are understood to have criticised the decision. A BBC spokeswoman said: "For a programme of its type it has received a very large number of calls. There were complaints about the decision to postpone. But it was taken purely because of the Azores summit overrunning. When we are dealing with a major news story, that receives priority." The BBC said it moved the film so it could trail it throughout Monday and screen it in a slot where current affairs programmes had been shown before. But senior BBC managers privately admitted the decision was controversial. An internal memo sent to the Correspondent team by the BBC2 controller, Jane Root, said the scheduling switch "will add fuel to the conspiracy theorists". The producers of the programme were said to be disappointed by the move but added that they accepted the pressure of news coverage was responsible. Jewish groups remained unmoved last night, saying that the programme, which accused Israeli forces of using an illegal incapacitating gas against Palestinians in Gaza two years ago, was unjust in comparing the Jewish state to Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. The documentary, which reported on Mordechai Vanunu, the whistleblower who exposed Israel's nuclear programme, asked: "Which country in the Middle East has undeclared nuclear weapons?"; "Which country in the Middle East has undeclared biological and chemical capabilities?"; and "Which country in the Middle East has no outside inspectors?" |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (23 of 23)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23The is a lot of resentment out there:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=119115&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0
http://www.whtt.org/articles/onui.htm
Jewish angst in Albion
Signs of leftist and Islamist anti-Semitism are rife in Britain these days, and the Jewish community is worried. But many are equally concerned that fear is blurring the line between hatred of Jews and legitimate criticism of Israel.
By David Landau
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=119116&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Even in good old USA feathers have been ruffled ....
New Statesman apologizes for `anti-Semitic'
cover - not story
By Charlotte Halle
ANTI-SEMITIC: The cover that sparked the controversy
The editor of the New Statesman has apologized for a front cover featuring a Star of David standing on a Union Jack above the headline `A Kosher Conspiracy.'
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=128266&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
"fear is blurring the line between hatred of Jews and legitimate criticism of Israel". its like the anti-american accusations when critisising the states. we need to be specific about pointing the finger (as do those retorting), e.g. against corporate america or against the sharon regime, etc. that way its specific and clear that the people of either nation is not being accused of something they do not always have control over (for various reasons that we are all aware of).
In principle you are right Cathal but the problem is that many of those "retorting" are all too keen to blur the line ... inasmuch as they are not plain dumb, it is part of their tactics to try to destroy the legitimacy of any criticism ... if you can't beat your opponent with facts, then smear him .....
Unfortunately the "average citizen" is often too poorly informed (or perhaps I should say too well misinformed) to be able to see through it .....
a man with a definite hatred of jews.
He shall face another PM with a definite hatred of arabs in TelAviv. We normally say that neither Palestinian nor Israeli can be '·anti-semitic·' because both peoples are semitic. But I think both are most certainly anti-semitic, as in their avowed course of action is to continue the loss of blood and life of semitic peoples.
One can not [you can not] (we can not) {they can}
talk of Israeli nuclear defence acquisition without touching on Apartheid South African nuclear defence acquistition.
That would bring me (you) [us] 'one' {but not them}
to discussing nuclear proliferation.
then I (maybe you) [one] {most certainly they} would begin to discuss Brazil's hopes for a nuclear deterrent-
then she (herself) would mention my socks.
which are putrid, dirty, stink and as of as yet go uninspected without conditioner or even the thrifty intervention of a darning.
Despite the likely unjustifiable claim Israelis have for the land the State of Israel is situated on due the questionable truth of the Bible stories, the fact remains that now that generations of Jewish people have been born have there grown up there and consider it their home. Millions of people live in that area who do not wish to live any where else and do not consider themselves Eastern European, French, German, Russian and American as their descendents would have been.
The Arab countries do not not just want a Palestine but would wish use it as a means to remove Israel from the map.
Deeply flawed and agressive as it is Israel however is still an open democratic country with its people ruled by representatives that the people elect themselves. NONE of the Arab counties are democracies and their leaders operate brutal suppression of their own people.
Extremist Jewish Orthodoxy and Extemist Islam are equally repulsive and should be defeated.
However the vast majority of Israelis wish to live in peace and freedom whereas the Palestinian authority want their own authoritarian enclave where they can oppress the aspirations of their people for open reform and democracy. Extremist Palestinians want to slaughter the Israelis, men women and children and take back the land generations ago they rightly owned.
The only way the Israel will cease to exist is if every man women and child in that country is killed. But that is EVIL!That would mean the murder and ethnic cleansing of millions.
If the fascist PLO is allowed their own state then it will show Israel to be weak.
If Israel is seen to be weak it does not matter how good relations are between Jews and muslims outside enemies such as Syria, Egypt, Jordon, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia,Lebanon and many other countries who threaten Israel will see this as their chance! They will attack israel and destroy it!
That is why the Western democracies have no alternative but to support Israel and defend it while at the same time try to make the Arab countries see sense and come to agreement. Palestine should be a free country but only if its is a free and open democracy and Islamic terrorists in that country stop attacking Israel with the object of destroying it. The only future for the Arab world is the model of open free deomcracy we enjoy in the West.
Because I despise and denounce Israeli intransigence and barbarity, I will simply not allow Israelis nor anybody else the right to pin the guilt to my shoulder the way the Nazis pinned the Star Of David on the Jews. The Jewish community around the world should not make the mistake of the Germans in the time of Hitler, by condoning with their silence or defending with their cries of anti-Semitism, what is obviously wrong in the eyes of the rest of the world. Future generations won't burden innocent Jews with Bulldozer Sharon and his stormtroopers' guilt if they dare to speak out against the genocidal ambitions of the present governing cabals of Zionists in Washington and Tel Aviv before it is too late.
To the harbourers and Israeli propagandists I say, how dare you attempt to besmirch those who have the courage to denounce Sharon's depravity and your complicity in it. Sharon, like Pinochet and Milosevic will one day be made to answer for the barbarity of his actions with something more than the standard snarl and boring, threadbare cliche of anti-Semitism. Just because I refuse to accept the expedient white-washed White House approved explanation, the conventional US media hyped sound-bite, that all Palestinians who dare resist Israeli aggression are terrorists, and must either be destroyed or tolerate their “detention” under US-Israeli hegemony. For the rest of the unbiased world, I am sure, that makes me neither a terrorist nor an anti-Semite. If I don't speak out now against this injustice and naked posturing on the part of the malevolent emperor and his little tailor in Washington, then I run the far greater risk of becoming a passive collaborator, a crime much more shameful in my eyes.
If being anti-Sharon and anti-IOF now means anti-Semitism then so be it!
Though always a misnomer it used to be that “anti–Semitic” was a term used exclusively to describe someone that hated Jews, today however it has become a term used by Jews to describe those they hate.
T Dillon,
whereas I agree with pretty much all of what you say in your mail, I do not share your hope that Sharon will be brought to justice.
Pinochet has been left off the hook because of favours to the British and this will be the model for Sharon, who has performed many favours for the US over the years he can call in his defence.
http://www.indictsharon.net/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,608171,00.html
There is nothing inherently wrong with Sharon. His demonisation is nothing less than Anti-Semitism. If, for example, you look at the established FACTS of Sabra and Chatila instead of indulging in hysterical ranting, you find:
1) The Israeli Army did not commit the massacre, it was the Christian Phalangists. No-one rants about them for some reason...
2) Detailed allegations of complicity come from Palestinian sources only, which makes them highly suspect.
3) The Kahane Commission in Israel set up to investigate the matter found that Sharon was negligent and made a major blunder. However, they did not find that he deliberately ordered the massacre or anything like it.
Basically, people don't like Sharon because he is a Jew and he is tough and he doesn't accept being messed around. This is very upsetting to anti-Semites around the world because they think that Jews' rightful condition is one of being oppressed.
As for the casualties caused among the Palestianians by the IDF under Sharon's command, again you have to separate hysteria from fact. Unfortunately, it is not Israel's fault that
1) the Arabs are inept fighters, so a lot of them get killed in ill-advised acts of resistance
2) terrorists don't care about setting up shop in Palestinian areas, because they see that the more civilian casualties are caused, which is inevitable, the greater the propaganda value for them.
By the way, if Israel really wanted to inflict casualties on Palestinian civilians, believe me, they are plenty powerful enought to do so on a horrific scale. The fact that they don't is evidence of exceptional restratint.
So Avi, how democratic is Israel ?
Do non-jewish Israelis have equal rights with jewish Israelis ....
Does an Israeli Passport distinguish between Jew and non-Jew ?
Please clarify.
Israeli Arabs have equal legal rights with all other Israelis and can vote etc. They also have the right not to serve in the military if they don't want to, whereas all other Israelis are required to serve.
An Israeli passport does not distinguish between Israeli Arabs and all other Israelis.
By "all other Israelis", I suppose you mean jewish Israelis ... or are there others falling in this category ... ?
Are there any restrictions on non-jewish Israelis under the law or constitution of your country ... ?
Avi,
the logic in your posting of excusing Sharon because the phalangists did his dirty work is fundamentally flawed. Nobody doubts that he gave the orders through his chain of command and the buck stops at the top.
Secondly, if we take your logic of on-step-removal it also has the dis-advantage of allowing the Nazis, Pol Pot, Miloshevic etc. to wash their hands of their crimes.
So which is it then Avi are the Nazis innocent or is Sharon a war-criminal?
Or is Sharon operating under different rules from the rest of human kind. Perhaps he received the order to exterminate the Palestinians directly from God as one of the chosen people?
I can't wait to hear your next feeble excuse for the behaviour of this war criminal. Did you ever pay any attention in school? The Nazis could really have used you as their defence lawyer in Nurnberg!
Kokomero, try being intelligent in your next life: you will find it so helpful and much more pleasant. In the meantime, I would suggest you use the limited grey matter at your disposal to overcome your appalling, transparent Jew-hate and admit to yourself that there is NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT that Sharon ordered the Sabra and Chatila massacres. I also suggest that you make a public apology for being an ignorant bigot.
Democrat: In Israel, no constitutional distinction whatever is made between Jews and Arabs. Arabs can vote and a number of them are members of parliament. There are even one or two who are in the government. Arabic is an official language along with Hebrew. I even know a few schools that are completely integrated, with Arab and Jewish children studying side-by-side.
Democrat: I forgot one thing. There is one distinction between Jews and everyone else(Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, whatever). Jews have the right of return, which means that any Jews can go to Israel and obtain citizenship immediately. This right is designed to honour and preserve the Jewish character of the country. I don't think this is unreasonable, given that Israel is the Jewish people's only homeland: whereas Arabs have 21 other Arab countries, the Jews have no other Jewish country.
Avi,
The legal analysis below with respect to Yaron applies to Sharon as well.
As Minister of Defense, Sharon bore command responsibility for the genocidal massacre at Sabra and Shatilla. In this regard the correct rule of international law is set forth in US Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (1956), Paragraph 501, Responsibility for Acts of Subordinates:
"In some cases military commanders may be responsible for war crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces, or other persons subject to their control.Thus, for instance, when troops commit massacres and atrocities against the civilian population of occupied territory...the responsibility may rest not only with the actual perpetrators but also with the commander. Such a responsibility arises directly when the acts in question have been committed in pursuance of an order of the commander concerned. The commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to insure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof."
As Minister of Defense, Sharon was Yaron's "commander" and thus is himself also criminally responsible for the genocidal massacre at Sabra and Shatilla.
December 2000
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law.
As usual you will dismiss this as obviously for you a credible source means that the only way Sharon could be convicted is if the Israeli government admits to what they did in Lebanon, ie you will only accept an Israeli government approved source.
There is ample evidence of Israeli wrong-doing in the Lebanon that any but you would accept if you care to look. A question on the phalangeists by the way ... where are they now?
They're lapping up the sun in northern Israel under Israeli govt. protection where they were interviewed by the BBC last year ... why? Because they know exactly what the chain of command was!
Just to set the record straight for the Nth time I do not hate Israelis, nor Jews, hell I don't even hate you. I feel sorry for you as you are obviously the victim of Zionist brainwashing and cant think for yourself.
The only person I've heard consistently expressing hatred for groups of people is you! Any hatred directed at you is understandable in that the others using this site haven't realised that you're a simpleton and don't make allowances for your childish opinions and behaviour.
Your brain is obviously so enfeebled by the daily diet of propaganda you consume and promptly throw up on this site in an undigested state, that you are incapable of being objective.
So take your accusations of anti-whatever and insert them into the ample void between your ears.
As for Sharon I am sure he will burn in hell along with Hitler, Saddam and Pol Pot etc. for what he has done and none of your arguments will be of any use to him!
I will simply not allow Israelis nor anybody else the right to pin the guilt to my shoulder the way the Nazis pinned the Star Of David on the Jews. The Jewish community around the world should not make the mistake of the Germans in the time of Hitler, by condoning with their silence or defending with their cries of anti-Semitism, what is obviously wrong in the eyes of the rest of the world. Future generations won't burden innocent Jews with Sharon and his stormtroopers' guilt if they dare to speak out against the genocidal ambitions of the present governing cabal in Tel Aviv before it is too late.
To the harborers and Israeli propagandists I say, how dare you attempt to besmirch those who have the courage to denounce Sharon's depravity and your complicity in it. Sharon, like Pinochet and Milosevic will one day be made to answer for the barbarity of his actions with something more than the standard snarl and boring, threadbare cliche of anti-Semitism. Just because I refuse to accept the expedient white-washed White House approved explanation, the conventional US media hyped sound-bite, that all Palestinians who dare resist Israeli aggression are terrorists, and must either be destroyed or tolerate their “detention” under US-Israeli hegemony. For the rest of the unbiased world, I am sure, that makes me neither a terrorist nor an anti-Semite. If I don't speak out now against this injustice and naked posturing on the part of the malevolent emperor and his little tailor in Washington, then I run the far greater risk of becoming a passive collaborator, a crime much more shameful in my eyes and those of my son. If being anti-Sharon and anti-IOF now means anti-Semitism then so be it!
In realtion to the recent suit being brought in Belguim:
"At the time of the massacres, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were in control of all Beirut. As Minister of Defense with overall responsibility for the IDF and architect of Israel's invasion of Lebanon, Sharon, the suit holds, had command responsibility for the Lebanese Forces militia sent into the camps by the IDF on the evening of 16 September. The IDF received first reports of atrocities in the camps within two hours, but allowed the Lebanese Forces to remain in the camps until the morning of 18 September"
"In light of new revelations detailing the extent of cooperation between the IDF and the Lebanese Forces, a rightwing Christian militia armed and trained by Israel, Sharon's complicity in war crimes will be even harder to refute. Hebrew documents anonymously provided to Mallat and his colleagues last June, and widely believed to be sections of an unpublished annex to the final report of the Kahan Commission, reveal that Sharon encouraged the Lebanese Forces to enter the camps despite knowing of their desire to raze their camps and despite knowing their record of atrocities during the IDF's 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
Recent journalistic investigations have also revealed that IDF soldiers oversaw and assisted in the interrogation of hundreds of Palestinian men and boys at a sports stadium on the edge of the camps during and after the massacre. Some of the men and boys were taken away, never to be seen again."
and the ICING ON THE CAKE, especially for you mr AVI H (does the H stand for Hatred of anyone who criticises Israel?)
"Israel's 1982 Kahan Commission inquiry into the events in Sabra and Shatila, which concluded that Sharon bore "personal responsibility" for the massacres."
There you go Avi - "personal responsibility" from the Kahan Commission - are they anti-semitic too?
And if Israels so democratic, why did they try and outlaw arab parties in the last election?
The evidence presented is not adequate: it either consists of generalised allegations from shadowy, unproduced documents, non-independently verified claims from Palestinian sources, which in principle have a general proposition have a long history of lies and exaggeration or distortions or selective quoting of the Kahane Commission's findings.
Well, I have read the KC's report in detail in its entirety in the original Hebrew. While the report does speak of responsibility on the part of Sharon, you are taking that part of it out of context. In detail, I repeat, it refers to blunders and negiligence but NEVER, EVER, ANYWHERE to deliberate instigation or conduct of the massacre.
I also repeat that if the true motivation behind these accusations over Sabra and Chatila is to punish those who committed the massacre, rather than to demonise Israel and it's prime minister, why don't you only or at least also make claims against the Lebanese Christians. It is this selective condemnatory behaviour, along with the general hysteria and refusal to look at the actual evidence in an objective way, that makes the whole thing smell strongly of anti-Semtism.
"The evidence presented is not adequate: it either consists of generalised allegations from shadowy, unproduced documents, non-independently verified claims from Palestinian sources"
Unlike the univeral truth that our resident pro-sharon poster avi always speaks?
"it refers to blunders and negiligence but NEVER, EVER, ANYWHERE to deliberate instigation or conduct of the massacre."
So eould yo like to give me the exact context in which 'personal responsibilty' was reffered to? or do i have to understand hewbrew to get it?
"I also repeat that if the true motivation behind these accusations over Sabra and Chatila is to punish those who committed the massacre, rather than to demonise Israel and it's prime minister, why don't you only or at least also make claims against the Lebanese Christians."
oh believe me the so called christain phalangists do not escape my condemnation either. i have a picture i trail out from time to time which shows a bunch of these guys danicing round the corpse of a palestinain. i look at it just to remind myself that religion can be used to justify almost anything. but the fact remains that sharon presided over this. he had the power to stop it - and didnt.
its chumps like avi who have made the charghe of anti semitism virtually meaningless. one would have to be peculiarly obsessed by ethnicity or religion to see sharon as first and foremost a jew. in fact it occurs to me that with all of avis posts and comments one thing stands out, and that is that the cranial measurer, the eugenicist, the racist in him overwhelms any political point he tries to make.