|
26 juli 2012
Brand Israel: BBC changed website photo at Israel’s request
The BBC changed a picture on its Israel profile page at the request of the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, replacing a photo of a soldier confronting a Palestinian with a shot of a Bauhaus style building in Tel Aviv. Success for Brand Israel.
The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office contacted the BBC this week, asking that the photo on the BBC Israel profile page be changed; the Israeli media source nrg.co.il reports that this request was part of Israel’s current “battle with the BBC to list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”
The photo on the profile page was indeed changed to show a Bauhaus style building in Tel Aviv, with the caption “Tel Aviv is also known as the White City for its collection of more than 4,000 buildings in the Bauhuas style."
Israel is very open about its Brand Israel policy. When beginning his job as Director of the Israeli Government Press Office last year, Oran Helman stated that he plans to “sell Israel as a democracy…an economic miracle.” Helman expressed hope that Israeli-government supplied information (including photographs) about “interesting stories,” together with a new perception of international journalists as “clients,” would result in more positive coverage of Israel.
http://fwd4.me/16rX
Brand Israel: BBC changed website photo at Israel’s request
The BBC changed a picture on its Israel profile page at the request of the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, replacing a photo of a soldier confronting a Palestinian with a shot of a Bauhaus style building in Tel Aviv. Success for Brand Israel.
The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office contacted the BBC this week, asking that the photo on the BBC Israel profile page be changed; the Israeli media source nrg.co.il reports that this request was part of Israel’s current “battle with the BBC to list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”
The photo on the profile page was indeed changed to show a Bauhaus style building in Tel Aviv, with the caption “Tel Aviv is also known as the White City for its collection of more than 4,000 buildings in the Bauhuas style."
Israel is very open about its Brand Israel policy. When beginning his job as Director of the Israeli Government Press Office last year, Oran Helman stated that he plans to “sell Israel as a democracy…an economic miracle.” Helman expressed hope that Israeli-government supplied information (including photographs) about “interesting stories,” together with a new perception of international journalists as “clients,” would result in more positive coverage of Israel.
http://fwd4.me/16rX
-
Maria 22 feb 2012
The Times’ History of Pro-Israel Coverage
2 mrt 2012
US Media Bias Israel Palestine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vZHiYo8Iu4
Ten reasons why AIPAC is so dangerous
By Medea Benjamin
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most powerful lobby organizations in the country. AIPAC’s clout helps fuel a never-ending cycle of violence in the Middle East.
Here are ten reasons why AIPAC is so dangerous.
1. AIPAC is lobbying Congress to promote a military confrontation with Iran. AIPAC - like the Israeli government - is demanding that the U.S. attack Iran militarily to prevent Iran from having the technological capacity to produce nuclear weapons, even though U.S. officials say Iran isn't trying to build a weapon (and even though Israel has hundreds of undeclared nuclear weapons). AIPAC has successfully lobbied the U.S. government to adopt crippling economic sanctions on Iran, including trying to cut off Iran's oil exports, despite the fact that these sanctions raise the price of gas and threaten the U.S. economy.
2. AIPAC promotes Israeli policies that are in direct opposition to international law. These include the establishment of colonies (settlements) in the Occupied West Bank and the confiscation of Palestinian land in its construction of the 26-foot high concrete "separation barrier" running through the West Bank. The support of these illegal practices makes to impossible to achieve a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
3. AIPAC's call for unconditional support for the Israeli government threatens our national security. The United States' one-sided support of Israel, demanded by AIPAC, has significantly increased anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East, thus endangering our troops and sowing the seeds of more possible terrorist attacks against us. Gen. David Petraeus on March 16, 2010 admitted that the U.S./Palestine conflict "foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel." He also said that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support."
4. AIPAC undermines American support for democracy movements in the Arab world. AIPAC looks at the entire Arab world through the lens of Israeli government interests, not the democratic aspirations of the Arab people. It has therefore supported corrupt, repressive regimes that are friendly to the Israeli government, such as Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. Events now unfolding in the Middle East should convince U.S. policy-makers of the need to break from AIPAC’s grip and instead support democratic forces in the Arab world.
5. AIPAC makes the U.S. a pariah at the UN. AIPAC describes the UN as a body hostile to the State of Israel and has pressured the U.S. government to oppose resolutions calling Israel to account. Since 1972, the US has vetoed 44 UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel’s actions against the Palestinians. President Obama continues that policy. Under Obama, the US vetoed UN censure of the savage Israeli assault on Gaza in January 2009 in which about 1400 Palestinians were killed; a 2011 resolution calling for a halt to the illegal Israeli West Bank settlements even though this was stated U.S. policy; a 2011 resolution calling for Israel to cease obstructing the work of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees; and another resolution calling for an end to illegal Israeli settlement building in East Jerusalem and the occupied Golan Heights.
6. AIPAC attacks politicians who question unconditional support of Israel. AIPAC demands that Congress to rubber stamp legislation drafted by AIPAC staff. It keeps a record of how members of Congress vote and this record is used by donors to make contributions to the politicians who score well. Members of Congress who fail to support AIPAC legislation have been targeted for defeat in re-election bids. These include Senators Adlai Stevenson III and Charles H. Percy, and Representatives Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, and Earl F. Hilliard. AIPAC's overwhelmingly disproportionate influence on Congress subverts our democratic system.
7. AIPAC attempts to silence all criticism of Israel by labeling critics as "anti-Semitic," "de-legitimizers" or "self-hating Jews." Journalists, think tanks, students and professors have been accused of anti-Semitism for merely taking stands critical of Israeli government policies. These attacks stifle the critical discussions and debates that are at the heart of democratic policy-making. The recent attacks on staffers at the Center for American Progress is but one example of AIPAC efforts to crush all dissent.
8. AIPAC feeds U.S. government officials a distorted view of the Israel/Palestine conflict. AIPAC takes U.S. representatives on sugar-coated trips to Israel. In 2011, AIPAC took one out of very five members of Congress—and many of their spouses—on a free junket to Israel to see precisely what the Israeli government wanted them to see. It is illegal for lobby groups to take Congresspeople on trips, but AIPAC gets around the law by creating a bogus educational group, AIEF, to "organize" the trips for them. AIEF has the same office address as AIPAC and the same staff. These trips help cement the ties between AIPAC and Congress, furthering their undue influence.
9. AIPAC lobbies for billions of U.S. taxdollars to go to Israel instead of rebuilding America. While our country is reeling from a prolonged financial crisis, AIPAC is pushing for no cuts in military funds for Israel, a wealthy nation. With communities across the nation slashing budgets for teachers, firefighters and police, AIPAC pushes for over $3 billion a year to Israel.
10. Money to Israel takes funds from world’s poor. Israel has the 24th largest economy in the world, but thanks to AIPAC, it gets more U.S. taxdollars than any other country. At a time when the foreign aid budget is being slashed, keeping the lion’s share of foreign assistance for Israel meaning taking funds from critical programs to feed, provide shelter and offer emergency assistance to the world’s poorest people.
The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has influence on U.S. policy out of all proportion to the number of Americans who support its policies. When a small group like this has disproportionate power, that hurts everyone—including Israelis and American Jews.
From stopping a catastrophic war with Iran to finally solving the Israel/Palestine conflict, an essential starting point is breaking AIPAC’s grip on U.S. policy.
http://fwd4.me/0vfw 4 mar 2012, 23:39 , Respect -
Maria 4 mrt 2012
Anonymous: Message to AIPAC (ANTI-ZIONIST)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P0viOFLz0I
6 mar 2012, 07:53 , Respect -
Maria 5 mrt 2012
President Obama at 2012 AIPAC Policy Conference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0rFbP6KvxY
The President delivers remarks at the 2012 AIPAC Policy Conference at the Washington Convention Center. March 4, 2012.
Former Top Israeli Official Slams Obama's AIPAC Speech: His Words Are Tough But His Actions Aren't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp8rtlZxapk
Obama offers Netanyahu assurances over Iran
By Jeffrey Heller and Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Barack Obama appealed to Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday to give sanctions more time to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the Israeli prime minister gave no sign of backing away from possible military action.
The two men, who have had a strained relationship, sought to present a united front in the Iranian nuclear standoff as they opened White House talks. But their public statements revealed differences over how to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
In one of the most consequential meetings of US and Israeli leaders in years, Obama and Netanyahu made no mention of lingering disagreements that Washington fears could lead to an Israeli rush to attack Iran's nuclear sites in the coming months.
Obama took a double-barrelled approach, seeking to assure Netanyahu that the United States was keeping the military option open against Iran and always "has Israel's back," but also urging Israeli patience to allow sanctions and diplomacy to work.
Netanyahu, speaking in historical terms about Israel's determination to be the "master of its fate," focused on reserving the right to defend Israel against Iran. Israel sees Iran's nuclear program as a threat to its existence.
"We believe there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution," Obama said, even he sought to convince Netanyahu of stiffened US resolve against the Islamic republic.
In cautioning against renewed international diplomatic engagement with Iran, Netanyahu has warned Western powers not to fall into a "trap" of letting Iran buy more time.
There was no immediate sign from Monday's talks that Obama's sharpened rhetoric against Iran and calls for restraint by Tel Aviv would be enough to delay any Israeli military plans against Tehran, which has called for Israel's destruction..
Despite that, the body language between the two leaders was a stark contrast to their last Oval Office meeting in May 2011 when Netanyahu lectured Obama on Jewish history and criticized his approach to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
This time, Obama and Netanyahu appeared cordial and businesslike, smiling at each other and sometimes nodding as the other spoke.
Even though Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Iran in recent days, he and Netanyahu went into the talks divided over how quickly the clock is ticking toward possible military action, and the meeting appeared unlikely to change that.
They remain far apart on any explicit nuclear "red lines" that Tehran must not be allowed to cross, and they have yet to agree on a time frame when military forces might need to be applied.
Preserving trust
Obama's encounter with Netanyahu was considered crucial to preserving the trust of America's closest Middle East ally, which fears that time is running out for an effective Israeli strike on Iran, and to counter election-year criticism from Republican rivals who question his support for Israel.
He is also trying to tamp down increasingly strident talk of another war in the region that could cause further spikes in global oil prices and hit the fragile US economic recovery - dire consequences that could threaten his re-election chances.
Speculation is mounting that Israel could opt to act militarily on its own unless it receives credible guarantees that the United States will be ready to use force against Iran if international sanctions and diplomacy fail.
Israel fears that Iranian nuclear facilities may soon be buried so deep that they would be invulnerable to its bunker-busting bombs, which are less powerful than those in the US arsenal.
Obama said both he and Netanyahu "prefer to resolve this diplomatically" and that both understand the cost of military action.
Netanyahu did not echo that point in his own brief public remarks, saying instead: "If there's one thing that stands out clearly in the Middle East today, it's that Israel and America stand together."
What is clear, however, is the potential political liability for Obama's re-election bid if hostilities break out in the Middle East before the Nov. 6 US presidential election.
Netanyahu's visit comes one day before the pivotal "Super Tuesday" round of Republican presidential primaries, with Obama's Republican rivals seizing on the chance to accuse him of being weak in backing a staunch ally and in confronting a bitter foe.
Further complicating matters is a trust deficit between Obama and Netanyahu.
In their last Oval Office meeting a year ago, Netanyahu embarrassed Obama by lecturing him on Jewish history and flatly rejecting his proposal that Israel's 1967 borders be the basis for negotiations on creating a Palestinian state.
But relations have thawed somewhat since then as Obama has taken a tougher line on Iran while refraining from any new Middle East peace drives. Obama also scored points with Israelis for opposing a Palestinian bid for UN statehood recognition last September.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=465524
Erekat: PA disappointed by Obama speech
BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) -- PLO official Saeb Erekat said Monday that the Palestinian Authority was disappointed with US President Barack Obama's recent speech at an AIPAC conference.
"This speech is part of Obama’s election campaign," Erekat told Ma'an.
"Unfortunately, the speech ignored the requirements for peace as it did not touch on urging Israel to accept the two-state solution, halt settlement activities, and stop imposing facts on the ground."
Erekat said the speech at AIPAC's policy conference in Washington on Sunday showed "unprecedented support" to Israel, and the PLO official urged Arab nations to give priority to Arab interests just as the US supported their own interests abroad.
Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Jerusalem Fund and Palestine Center in the United States, said on Sunday that Netanyahu was pressuring the US president into "a position where Obama's reelection interests clash with American national interests," the Institute for Middle East Understanding reported.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=465347 6 mar 2012, 07:53 , Respect -
Maria 6 mrt 2012
Prime Minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu at AIPAC 2012
(29:56) Prime Minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu at AIPAC 2012
Senator Joe Lieberman Full Speech
(21:03) PC2012 - Monday Morning Plenary - Speech: Senator Joe Lieberman
Israeli President Shimon Peres Full Speech
(20:46) PC2012 - Sunday Opening Plenary - Speech: Israeli President Shimon Peres
Chairman of the Board Lee Rosenberg
(7:52) PC2012 - Sunday Evening Plenary - Speech: Chairman of the Board Lee Rosenberg
Eric Cantor Presentation
(22:23) PC2012 - Monday Leadership Lunch - Eric Cantor
Student Moment
(5:55) PC2012 - Sunday Opening Plenary - Student Moment
Monday Hangover: AIPAC, all About Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rJdhhECCo8 -
Maria 12 mrt 2012
My story with Israeli propaganda
by Diana Alzeer
Today while I am starting to write this blog piece, I came across a breaking news headline on MaanNews website stating that 2 more were killed in Gaza including a child.
Anyhow my story starts here, yesterday and in the morning hours and on a page created for Palestinian journalists only Journalist Hamadah Ahmad from Gaza posted a photo of a little girl held by her father, the photo created a big fuss on the group since some of the journalist protested the bloody photos and stated such photos not to be posted since it may bother some of the –Not used to see blood journalists- And here where I saw the photo:
( click on pictures to enlarge) never the less on my return and being active on Twitte, I have decided to tweet the photo using (www.twitpic.com), and I did so.
Notice, although I thought it was from yesterday my post doesn’t mention a date!
During my work hours I got super busy with work related issues and forgot to check my twitter till later on during the day, to discover that @AviMayer an –Israel Lover- has followed me with several other Israelis calling me a liar and sending me links of the same photo being published on Palestinian –Israel hating- blogs like they called them.
Anyhow turns out that this photo is indeed old dating back to 2006. Lucky me (Sarcasm) this photo happened to be a unique one as it appears that Reuters photo Agency published it in 2006 stating that it’s a Palestinian child murdered by in Israeli attack on Gaza as it was taken in the same hospital casualties of the Israeli attack were being sent to. Later on Reuters retraced their claim with an apology and caption correction.
I on the other hand after finding out more about the photo retraced stating the following: “Warning/Apology: Photo I tweeted earlier which has been circulated over FB turns out to be old photo of Raja Abu Sha’ban killed in Gaza 2006”.
Following is the Israeli Army blog (IDFblog) blogs about this issue on this link (Please do read it to understand how the Israeli propaganda works):
Here is also a link to an American pro-Israel site that has Reuters Caption Correction:
I have to note here that I have done my research and I could not find the original caption correction on Reuters website, if someone would like to take the initiative to find it or contact Reuters for it, please pass it down to me, I would appreciate that.
As for the attacks the Israeli propaganda launched against me and @KhuloodBadawi and some other Palestinian tweets here are some examples of the Israeli Hate speech directed at us:
The last tweet to me @ManaraRam Translates to “your mother is garbage, you ugly ‘Arab-ushi’’.
That is said on the little girl photo, what remains is what have not been said or confessed by the Israeli media or the IDF spokesperson is the following:
1 Images of killed and injured kids in Gaza . On this issue I chose not to post new bloody images of children murdered or injured due to Israeli attacks on Gaza, just click on the hyperlink to view the original photos of children in Gaza during the war on Gaza AKA Cast Lead. And if you are still curious you can go ahead and do your own research on civilians, women, children killed during the Israeli operation/ war on Gaza.
2 Israeli media continues to operate within the Israeli Military occupation boundaries, please check this blog on Electronic Intifada by Ali AbuNimah on how Israeli media decides to cover the latest attacks on Gaza “Mowing the lawn”: On Israel’s latest massacre in Gaza and the lies behind it.
3 The IDFSpokesperson on twitter @AvitalLeibovich who decided today to share a video of rocket firing into Israel, here is the link she shared:
This link happened to be of a more than 3 months old video, uploaded again yesterday March 11, 2012.
Here is the old video uploaded 3 months ago on October 29, 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tslm1734mMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tslm1734mMM
And Just in case the video is taken offline or deleted, here is a photo:
This only makes me wonder if that youtube account is not fake? And she is supposedly the IDF official spokesperson like here account on twitter says “I am the official Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson to the international press”.
On the same Ahmad Nimer @ANimer a Palestinian blogger illustrated once more on his blog My Agenda . If Interested check hyperlinks for details.
Just before I end this long draining blog, I have to mention one missing element of how my day and the day of Palestine tweeps ended with the Israeli Propaganda ended, and of course the photo tells a thousand word:
About Diana Alzeer
A Palestinian- Bulgarian activist, journalist and a freelance film producer. Activism is a life style!
View all posts by Diana Alzeer -> http://manara1ram.blog.com/
http://fwd4.me/0wHc
5 apr 2012
Israel’s New Public Diplomacy
8 jul 2012, 18:36 , Respect -
Maria 19 mei 2012
Time Magazine Crowns Israeli Prime Minister King of Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuebx2_h60k
Time Cover features "King Bibi"
The Time article states, "Netanyahu is poised to become the longest-serving Israeli Prime Minister since David Ben-Gurion, the founding father of Israel, He has no national rival. His approval rating, roughly 50%, is at an all-time high. At a moment when incumbents around the world are being shunted aside, he is triumphant."
Has "King Bibi" in fact conquered Israel? An approval rating of 50%, maybe an all time high for Netanyahu, but it is hardly a resounding round of applause. The Israeli public is very divided in outlook and ideology. The reality is that Israeli politics are not so kind and things can quickly change.
The article goes on to say that Netanyahu has "...a governing coalition that will not leak or collapse if he opens negotiations. He will no longer have to look over his shoulder. He will not have to call elections at the drop of a hat. He has not had that before, and it gives him room to maneuver and room to compromise. "Now he is the emperor ... he can do anything," [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] said last week. "If I were him, I would do it now, now, now."
The article imagines that Netanyahu is the key to peace in the region. He has a choice of making peace or war. Time outlines what King Bibi will do if he is a good king - compromise and give away land to the Arabs. On the other hand if he is a bad king, he would do things such as defending Israel by force of arms against the Iranian threat. The article pushes Netanyahu into the direction that Time envisions will bring peace - concessions to the Palestinian Arabs, which of course would result in the expulsion of Jews from the contested Biblical heartland of Israel. A survey of other Time magazine covers tells the story. When Netanyahu first became Prime Minister in 1996, Time featured him on the cover and asked the question: "Can he make peace?" The January 19, 2009, cover declared, "Why Israel Can't Win." and promised to instruct us "How Obama can forge a Middle East peace". The September 13, 2010, cover goaded the Jewish state by saying, "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace".
31 jul 2012, 10:41 , Respect -
Maria 24 mei 2012
Time Cover Story on Netanyahu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUsF8OveohM
Responding to Richard Stengel's Time magazine cover story on Benjamin Netanyahu, David Harris (AJC) and Michael Prell ("Underdogma") discuss the subtle anti-Israel bias of the piece which serves to delegitimize Israel.
31 jul 2012, 20:46 , Respect -
Maria 1 juni 2012
World War 3 - To Be Officially Declared
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToTC9w-JKA0
5 nov 2012, 11:03 , Respect -
Maria 8 juli 2012
Jews DO control the media
by Gilad Atzmon
Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The following article was published on the popular Zionist site Times Of Israel. It actually confirms everything we say and write about Jewish power, Jewish identity, Jewish left and Jewish AZZ (anti Zionist Zionists) . It is also consistent with each and every finding in my latest book The Wandering Who? We are dealing here with a racist chauvinist political identity.
Zionist honesty is a rare product, make sure that you read this article carefully and make the most out of it.
We Jews are a funny breed. We love to brag about every Jewish actor. Sometimes we even pretend an actor is Jewish just because we like him enough that we think he deserves to be on our team. We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.
We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do.
But the funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”
Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!
Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?
Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?
But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows.
And let’s not forget AIPAC, every anti-Semite’s favorite punching bag. We’re talking an organization that’s practically the equivalent of the Elders of Zion. I’ll never forget when I was involved in Israeli advocacy in college and being at one of the many AIPAC conventions. A man literally stood in front of us and told us that their whole goal was to only work with top-50 school graduate students because they would eventually be the people making changes in the government. Here I am, an idealistic little kid that goes to a bottom 50 school (ASU) who wants to do some grassroots advocacy, and these guys are literally talking about infiltrating the government. Intense.
Now, I know what everyone will say. That everyone tries to lobby. Every minority group and every majority group. That every group has some successful actors and directors. But that’s a far call from saying that we run Hollywood and Madison Avenue. That the Mel Gibsons of the world are right in saying we’re deliberately using our power to take over the world. That we’ve got some crazy conspiracy going down.
Okay. Fine. So some of that is kooky talk.
But let’s look at it a bit deeper.
Maybe it’s true: everyone lobbies. Maybe it’s true there are actors of every ethnicity out there. But come on. We’re the ones who are bragging about this stuff all the time. Can’t we admit that we’re incredibly successful? Can’t we say it to the world?
I’ll give my theory for why Jews don’t want to talk about their control of the media.
First of all, as much as Jews like to admit that so many of them are successful, and that so many of them have accomplished so much, they hate to admit that it has to do with they’re being Jewish. Maybe they’ll admit that it has something to do with the Jewish experience. But how many Jews will admit that there is something inherently a part of every single one of them that helps them to accomplish amazing things?
The ADL chairman, Abe Foxman, was interviewed in a great article about the subject and he said that he “would prefer people say that many executives in the industry ‘happen to be Jewish.’” This just about sums up the party line.
The truth is, the anti-Semites got it right. We Jews have something planted in each one of us that makes us completely different from every group in the world. We’re talking about a group of people that just got put in death camps, endured pogroms, their whole families decimated. And then they came to America, the one place that ever really let them have as much power as they wanted, and suddenly they’re taking over. Please don’t tell me that any other group in the world has ever done that. Only the Jews. And we’ve done it before. That’s why the Jews were enslaved in Egypt. We were too successful. Go look at the Torah — it’s right there. And we did it in Germany too.
This ability to succeed, this inner drive, comes not from the years of education or any other sort of conditional factors, but because of the inner spark within each Jew.
Now, the reason groups like the ADL and AIPAC hate admitting this is because, first of all, they are secular organizations. Their whole agenda is to prove that every Jew is the same as every other person in the world. I cannot imagine a more outlandish agenda. No, we’re different. We’re special.
Of course, people hate when anyone says this. They assume that if you’re saying that Jews are special, it somehow implies that they’re better.
To be honest, I’m not really sure what the word “better” even means. What I do know is that being special simply means a person has a responsibility to do good.
I think that’s the real reason most Jews are so afraid to admit that there’s something inherently powerful and good about them. Not because they’re afraid of being special. But because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world. It means that things can’t just be created for the sake of amusement or fun or even “art.”
Suddenly, we can’t screw up the world.
The interesting thing is that Jews have done so much for the world in so many other ways. They’ve moved forward civil rights; they’ve helped save lives in Darfur, Haiti and just about everywhere else.
But that’s not enough. Fixing the world physically is only half the battle.
Our larger battle, the harder battle, is elevating the world spiritually. And this is what the people that fight with every inch of their soul to prove that Jews are just the same as everyone else are afraid of. It means that we can no longer just “express ourselves.” We’ll have to start thinking about the things we create and the way we act. It means we’ll have to start working together. It means we’ll have to hold one other, and ourselves, to a higher standard.
The time has come, though. We no longer have to change our names. We no longer have to blend in like chameleons. We own a whole freaking country.
Instead, we can be proud of who we are, and simultaneously aware of our huge responsibility — and opportunity.
http://networkedblogs.com/zFMiB and http://networkedblogs.com/zFMiB
5 nov 2012, 11:04 , Respect -
Maria 13 juli 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=357s5I4nrYw Banned Documentary update and bonus material
AIPAC: Inside America's Israel lobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnnQ_qTx9rY
19 juli 2012
Manny Friedman: Jews “own a whole freaking country”; and yes, that includes the media
Well, it turns out after all that Jews do control the media—and a whole lot besides. So says Manny Friedman, writing in the Times of Israel (“Yes, Jews DO control the media“). Of course, we at TOO have known this for quite a while, but it’s nice to hear it from a Jew, even though it’s in a Jewish publication and intended to be part of a Jews-only dialog.
The thing is, it’s okay for someone like Friedman to say it (or Joel Stein, writing in the LATimes and linked by Friedman). But it’s definitely not okay for someone like me.
In fact, Friedman is typical of Jewish writers who inhabit a completely Jewish universe when they talk about anything relating to Jews. Friedman is well aware that non-Jews who talk about such issues should prepare for a wall-to-wall, no-holds barred, 24/7 campaign against them:
The funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”
Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!
Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?
I don’t see any “funny parts” to this, and I rather doubt that “irony’ is the right word here. How about “ethnic strategizing,” as in “Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the ethnic strategizing of this?”
And what does being a “bigot” have to do with anything? The working philosophy of the ADL is that bigots are non-Jews who think Jews control the media or anything else. And underlying that philosophy is the idea that public awareness of Jewish control would be bad for the Jews. But the reality is that these “bigots” are often people who (correctly) think that Jews use their control to influence many other aspects of culture in ways that are not in the interests of non-Jews:
-- that the Israel Lobby has virtually made the US into a client state subservient to the interests of Israel, including the Iraq war and a looming war with Iran;
-- or that Jews use their control of the media to undermine public Christianity and traditional Western sexual mores, and to promote ideologies like multiculturalism that are quite opposed to the interests and attitudes of White Americans;
-- or that Jews are predominant among what Pat Buchanan calls the “casino capitalists.”
Buchanan, although avoiding the ethnic angle, only mentions Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs when discussing post-1995 financialscandals. (Here’s a list of TOO articles on Jewish financial malfeasance.)
This new predatory elite has exported American jobs, engaged in fraud, and repeatedly obtained lucrative bailouts when things get bad.
Fortunes are lost and made overnight. Names appear on the list of richest Americans no one has ever heard of. Cheating and corner-cutting are constantly being unearthed. Broker- and banker-gamblers in their 30s amass and flaunt nine-figure fortunes.
When WASPs were the dominant elite in America, their many Jewish critics never had any compunctions about calling them by name and probably loved using what Andrew Fraser calls the “subtly, perhaps deservedly derogatory acronym” of ’WASP’. But our new Jewish elite cannot tell its name despite the fact that they “own a whole freaking country”— a rather large and powerful country in which the vast majority of the population are not Jews.
Friedman says the reason for Jewish angst about discussions of Jewish power is because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world.
Right. Jews understand that there are huge conflicts of interest over the construction of culture, whether it’s foreign policy, the sexualization of culture, immigration, multiculturalism, or the role of Christianity in the public square. Quite simply, Jews have different attitudes and perceived interests, and they have been pushing in different directions than White Americans for the entire last century. Massive amounts of money, propaganda, and organizational effort have gone into this effort. This effort has been transformative.
Abe Foxman (quoted in the Stein article) would love to have Americans believe that there are a lot of executives in Hollywood who just happen to be Jewish and that’s the end of it. But it’s far more than that. Jews have fundamentally different attitudes and perceived interests when it comes to the construction of culture. It wouldn’t matter that Jews are an elite if they had the same attitudes and perceived interests as the traditional people and culture of America. But they don’t. And they haven’t, ever since they arrived en masse a century ago. Indeed, in general Jews have an atavistic hostility toward the traditional culture of the Christian West. (part 2)
Jewish organizations do everything in their power to prevent an honest discussion of Jewish power. And that is completely understandable. Do they really want to advertise to White America that Jews have had a preponderant role in making Whites a minority, in promoting the ideal of multiculturalism, in making America a client state of Israel, in the sexualization of culture and in legalizing and promoting pornography, in banning Christianity from the public square, in obliterating traditional American conservatism in the Republican Party, and in predatory financial practices that are destroying the American economy …?
Likely not. But one can bet that to the extent that there will be any discussion of Jewish power, it will be more or less exclusively within the confines of the Jewish community. So when non-Jews write about what went wrong, the vast majority don’t seem to notice the 800-lb gorilla in the room. They ignore the fact that Jewishness has anything to do with it. Here’s a recent WND article titled “Who Stole Our Culture?” that fails to come to grips with the powerful ethnic component of the correct answer, despite their emphasis on the central role of the notoriously Jewish Frankfurt School.
Friedman publishes his article in an Israeli newspaper (which is completely ignored by the MSM in the US) and links to Joel Stein (whose article sank like a rock and certainly did not ignite a national discussion on the consequences of Jewish media domination). Neither Friedman nor Stein would dream of linking toThe Occidental Observer or anything remotely similar to back up their claims. Yet our discussions are far more extensive, nuanced and well-sourced than anything put out by Friedman or Stein.
Non-Jews should have a robust role in the discussion of all these issues. Here’s Steven Walt criticizing Peter Beinart’s The Crisis of Zionism (in an otherwise favorable review) for addressing only Jews in the discussion of American attitudes toward Israel:
I think it is unfortunate that Beinart chose to direct his book almost entirely toward the American Jewish community. That is his privilege, and it’s possible that the best way to get a smarter U.S. policy would be to convince American Jewry to embrace a different approach. Yet Beinart’s focus also reinforces the idea that U.S. Middle East policy — and especially its policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — is a subject that is only of legitimate concern to Jewish-Americans (and Arab-Americans) and can only be legitimately discussed by these groups. In fact, U.S. Middle East policy affects all of us in countless ways and it ought to be a subject that anyone can discuss openly and calmly without inviting the usual accusations of bigotry or bias. I’m sure Beinart would agree, yet his book as written sends a subtly different message.
Right. We all have a right and even a duty to discuss these subjects because they affect our vital interests. But, like Walt and John Mearsheimer when their book on the Israel Lobby came out, doing so invites the worst sort of hostility from Jewish critics—ridiculous accusations that it was shoddy scholarship and a throwback to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
It is a compelling measure of Jewish power that Jews are able to so effectively suppress discussion of Jewish power. The power of no other group is off limits for public discussion. I can’t resist quoting Joe Sobran’s 1996 classic:
The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls [then the dominant team]. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad.
But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it.
A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Joe Sobran (1995). “The Jewish establishment.” Sobran’s(September):4–5).
The reality is that Jews cannot afford to have these issues discussed openly and honestly because doing so would not only threaten their power. It would create a huge backlash, since Jewish power has been so deeply antithetical to the interests of Whites in America and elsewhere.
So they sit on an ever more explosive powder keg. Shoring up their defenses, but unable to go back even if they wanted to (which they don’t). Pouncing mercilessly on anyone who gets off the reservation. With 100,000,000 non-Whites in America who are rapidly increasing as a percentage of the population, there are simply too many facts on the ground at this point to go into a low-key retreat.
The external controls keeping the non-Jews in line are certainly very powerful. As Cooper Sterling’s recent article shows (and as Friendman acknowledges), individuals who cross the lines imposed by the SPLC (a Jewish organization in all but name) or the ADL face dire economic and social consequences.
However, Jewish control goes far beyond the ability to punish behavior and attitudes they don’t like. Ultimately the whole edifice depends on massive self-censorship by non-Jews. Jews also need to use their position in the media to continue the incessant propaganda that reinforces the current dispensation— that diversity is a strength and is good for everyone, that all humans are essentially the same so that importing millions of Africans, Asians, and non-Whites from Latin America would have no effects on the fundamental character and institutions of the West, that Jews are powerless and that they are morally and intellectually superior victims of irrational hatreds, that Israel is an embattled democracy with a strong allegiance to the same values Americans hold dear, etc.
Implicitly at least, Jews realize that they need to use their media power to make these messages into psychological reflexes so that all White people, including especially respectable, well-educated White people, will feel shame and guilt for even thinking politically incorrect thoughts. In this, of course, they have been incredibly successful. We never see the end of guilt-ridden, self-flaggelating, ethnomasochistic Whites who look up to the New York Timesfor moral enlightenment. (Here’s a NYTimes “news article” from yesterday intended to induce guilt for opposing massive non-White immigration to Greece: “Greek Far Right Hangs a Target on Immigrants.” Wall-to-wall. 24/7.
It’s a long story why Whites are so susceptible to such manipulations. But yes, it matters who runs the media.
This is a short list of things that could possibly challenge the dominance of the current system:
Victory by a European nationalist party, such as Greece’s Golden Dawn (the focus of the NYTimes article), Hungary’s Jobbik, or France’s National Front. If one European country manages to have a nationalist revolution and manages to withstand the severe pressures that would be immediately arrayed against it, there would be a transformative effect on the rest of the White world.
The effect on the rest of the White world will be especially powerful as the costs of multiculturalism inexorably rise throughout the West and Western economies suffer from the effects of our predatory financial elite. There is a palpable anger in White America and throughout the White diaspora. It is unfocused or maladaptively focused (e.g., Christian Zionism). And it is without effective leadership. But it is a powerful force waiting to be harnessed.
The rise of new media, able to avoid the stifling conformity to the culture of Western suicide being preached by the mainstream media throughout the West. Our word is getting out, even though it is to a relatively tiny audience, many of whom are already converted. If our media becomes obviously influential and a threat to the current regime, there will be powerful attempts to destroy it.
But those on our side are increasingly intellectually confident and possessed of an intense moral fervor about the legitimacy of our cause. In the long run, such people are the worst enemies of the current zeitgeist. As recent research on opinion change shows, a small, confident, morally self-assured minority can dramatically alter the opinions of the majority. This has been the secret of Jewish success in influencing the culture of the West. But the ugliness of Israel and the towering hypocrisy of American Jews on everything related to Israel are pretty much impossible to hide at this point. The emperor clearly has no clothes.
Manny Friedman may be the Moritz Goldstein of 21st-century America. A century ago, Goldstein, a Zionist intellectual, famously commented that Jews should contemplate the implications of the fact that the German cultural heritage was now largely in Jewish hands. As recounted in Chapter 8 of Separation and Its Discontents (p. 250), the reaction was self-deception (or lying):
The unexpected frankness with which a Jew who eschewed self-delusion thus broke a taboo which otherwise had only been violated by anti-Semites with malicious tendencies, illuminated with lightning clarity the prevailing socio-political tensions. And perhaps more illuminating was the embittered reaction of most of the Jewish participants . . . who repudiated the thesis as such, declared the ventilation of the question to be improper, and tried with all their might to efface the divisions thus exposed. (Gershom Scholem. On the social psychology of the Jews in Germany: 1900–1933. In Jews and Germans from 1860 to 1933: The Problematic Symbiosis, ed. D. Bronsen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. 1979, 30.)
Goldstein was a Zionist, and his essay was greeted with hostility by liberal Jewish organizations who assailed the “excessive nationalism” and “racial semitism” of the Zionists (see Field 1981, 248). As Field (1981, 248) points out, another aspect of Jewish self-deception revealed by this incident was that these liberal Jewish critics never confronted the central problem raised by Goldstein when he noted that anti-Semites such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were “the best spirits, clever, truth-loving men who, however, as soon as they speak of Jews, fall into a blind, almost rabid hatred.” The credibility of the anti-Semites, not Moritz Goldstein, was the fundamental problem for German Jews.
Indeed,. The best spirits, clever, truth-loving men. With credibility.
It ain’t over ’til it’s over.