Posted by davidbaseone on Saturday, 10 March 2007 10:47:20

Unfortunately today, you don't get many votes for putting the opposite side of the anti-Israel media, but here's mine.

I attended at a talk a while back with Martin Bashir (now working for AlJazeera) who admitted on stage that there does seem to be a 'fashion' in reporting for demonising Israel.

He also said that foreign reporters always tend to report from countries that offer them protection - so in the case of almost everything Palestinian, and in just about every report from Lebanon at the time, Journalists from around the world, had media bases in Jerusalem - and from that safe haven reported direct, unquestioned and unsubstantiated Israeli 'atrocities' instantly back to an unquestioning public. So pretty much always Israels press freedom is used against them - this for sure would not happen in any of its neighbors?

The general public - bless 'em - are so bombarded by constant, instant, knee-jerk demonising reporting of Israel that they have no option but to swallow it all hook line & sinker.

It still amazes me that the people I talk to are quite ready to offer reasons & excuses why places like Iran, China and Iraq behave so incredibly badly... but talk about Israel and no-one will ever offer up a small token of;

'well, every day for the last 50 years they've lived under constant threat of attacks' ... or

'for years and year they tried to negotiate with one of the most corrupt person in the middle east; Yasser Arafat', so they HAVE tried'... or

'how can you expect Israel to make peace with a political party like Hamas thats stated intention is still the destruction of Israel'?

You can't blame people for jumping on a persecute Israel bandwagon, but you can be disappointed that so few people have the courage to take their own educated direction?

Actually, I take that back - you can blame people - ignorance never was & never should be an excuse? And gullibility isn't the right word, but 'willing' gullibility is.

Oh, I'm going to make so many friends here I can see? I've already had some runs ins with some people who's sole interests seem to be 'cannabis, conspiracy theories and criticising Israel'. Maybe now it's the 3 C's instead of the old 3 Ks?

Posted by ReverendJasonGraves on Saturday, 10 March 2007 11:23:37

"
A panel of experts from the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other international agencies announced a unanimous determination Monday that no depleted-uranium weapons had been used in the summer 2006 war in Lebanon. "To date, there is no evidence of depleted-uranium-ammunitions use during the 2006 conflict in Lebanon," Didier Louvat, IAEA head of radioactive waste issues, told a news conference hosted by the National Council for Scientific Research in Bir Hassan.
"



But Israel (military, government etc) DID use Cluster bombs, in the ~33 day conflict, which ARE illegal!


To die by bomb, bullet or by any other means, is still death! And pretty much to the dead people it's now irrelevant how they died.

To me and in my humble opinion, to focus on a single weapon as 'never' used in a conflict is really beside the point. As mentioned, Cluster weapons where used. Is this story to deflect from that?

Many innocents died on both sides. This war and many like it are simply just wrong. What does the media say about that?


Jesus

Posted by Kenenth on Saturday, 10 March 2007 14:54:53

Clinton changed the law in the US to facilitate a centralisation of media ownership. The same thing happened in 2002 in the UK. Where thousands of independent media outlets existed in the 80's, now most major media outlets are owned by 5 massive multinationals whose owners are Rupert Murdoch, Gerald Levin, Michael Eisner, Harvey Weinstein, Edgar Bronfman......

Now I am no racist, nor have I a religious bias (I am a 'lapsed' catholic), but its a fact that most major global media outlets (including those listed below) are owned by these guys who are Zionists (as opposed to lapsed catholics).

Does it matter? Is it anti-semetic to mention it? Personally I think Jews are just as good and bad as the next race/religion. Zionism I'm not so sure about - maybe I don't know enough about it. The reason I am prefacing my comment is that
Zionists seem to like to muddy the waters on this one, falsely equating any comment on Zionism and its influence as an attack on Jews and Israel. This is nonsense. They use this purely a political ploy. No more, no less.

But Jews are not necessarily Israeli and even less likely to be Zionist. Zionism is, at least to me, more of a political / financial statement of harsh intent than anything nationalistic or religious.

Palestinians are semetic too tincidentally, and I'm sure they would not complain that the narrow message presented to western populations is being highlighted by me here.

All these media companies owned by 5 people. I don't like that. They have a massive audience for what is the very narrow message they present. Some of the better known of these media outlets are:

SKY, HBO, The UK Times, The Sun, ABC, ESPN, TNT, CNN, Warner Brothers, Time Inc.CBS, Paramount, MTV, Nickelodeon, Fox Television Network, 20th Century Fox Films, Fox 2000, Miramax Films, Touchstone Pictures, New York Post, TV Guide, Universal Studios,Showtime, Country Music Television, Nashville Network Cable, Infinity Broadcasting (radio), Pocket Books, Free Press, Schribner, Simon & Schuster, USA Networks, Houghton Mifflin Publishers , A&E;, Lifetime, Caravan Pictures.

http://www.powertothepeople.org.uk/links.htm
http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1972519.stm

Posted by davidbaseone on Saturday, 10 March 2007 22:39:43

yep - for sure, the world of media is a pretty unsavoury place.

but...easy with the Zionist word there Kenenth.. Kenneth?

Theodor Herzl fought for the establishment of a Jewish (still the only Jewish state in the world - whilst there are many christian and muslim states) a while back when there was none - the location and right to live in the land is beyond question. Zionism then respresented the political drive to establish a state of Israel - there were not then and should not be now any bad associations with the word.

I'm concerned that now to be called a 'Zionist' is a form of insult? What do you mean when you use it?

the site your ref'd http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/ seems more than a little dodgy - talking about 'Jewish "Holocaust" tale' - Kenenth; I'm sure you can't support the content on there?

And no - of course it's not anti-semetic to 'mention' that there are a lot of very intelligent and sucessful Jewish people out there - many to whom we owe quite a lot of advances to. But the inference can be looked on suspiciously - the same as if I wrote a post regarding the 'huge amount of black people in sport'... and my point would be - goodness knows?

..come to think of it, what was your point?

I've calmed down a but from my previous post - but there are 2 things I love: my daughter and Israel & I'll protect them whenever I need to - and admonish too if necessary - but I'm always concerned about adding any more weight to criticism of Israel as I'd prefer to understand first, not just rush in fists flying like the media does - regardless of who owns it?

best regards
David

Posted by celina on Sunday, 11 March 2007 07:14:16

Hi Kenneth,
Perhaps you might look at the following about who owns the media.
The vast majority of the TV news pictures you see are produced by two TV news companies. Presented here is a case for how a large amount of money has been used to inject a clear bias into the heart of the global TV news gathering system. That this happens is not at question, whether it is by accident or design is harder to tell.

You may not realize it, but if you watch any TV news broadcast on any station anywhere in the world, there is a better than even chance you will view pictures from APTN. BBC, Fox, Sky, CNN and every major broadcaster subscribes to and uses APTN pictures. While the method by which they operate is interesting, it is the extra service this US owned and UK based company offers to Arab states that is really interesting.

About the Associated Press

The Associated Press (AP) is a not-for-profit news gathering and dissemination service based in the US.Formed in 1848, the AP grew up from an agreement between the six major New York newspapers of the day. They wanted to defray the large telegraphy costs that they were all independently incurring for sending the same news coast to coast. Despite being highly competitive, they formed the Associated Press as a collection agency and agreed to share the material. Today, that six-newspaper cooperative is an organization serving more than 1,500 newspapers and 5,000 broadcast outlets in the United States. Abroad, AP services are printed and broadcast in 112 countries.

Associated Press Television News

Associated Press Television News (APTN) is a wholly owned subsidiary of AP. It was formally set up as a separate entity in 1994. It is run as a commercial entity and aims to make a profit. Any profit it does make is fed back to AP (which is non-profit making: APTN profits reduce the newsgathering costs incurred by the 1500 US newspapers that collectively own the AP). APTN is the largest television news gathering player (larger than Reuters, its only true competitor in this field). While AP is based in the US, APTN operates out of large premises in Camden, London. They have news teams, offices and broadcast facilities in just about every important place in the world.

APTN uses news crews and broadcast facilities all over the world to record video of newsworthy events (in News, Sport and Entertainment). These pictures are either sent unedited or very partially edited back to London. Most news is fed back within hours but they also cover and feed certain events live (news conferences in Iraq, press conferences after a sporting event etc.). Most of these stories are sent in with “natural sound”: there is no journalist providing a voice over, but the choice of what to shoot is in the hands of the local producer and camera crew. Local crews are sometimes employed directly by APTN, or more often “stringers” are hired for a particular event or paid for the footage they have already captured.

Once the stories have been fed back to the UK they are edited. This is a round the clock operation. The goal is to produce a 30 minute news bulletin comprising 6 or 7 stories every few hours. These stories are made by editing down the raw “rushes” that come in from all over the world. This is done by a team of producers who work for the news editor. They don’t supply a voice over but they do edit, discard and sequence pictures dictating the emphasis and direction of the story. They will accompany each story with a written description of each shot and the general reason this was a story. This is repeated for News, Sport & Entertainment with a geographical emphasis that shifts around the world as different markets wake and sleep. The output of this is called the “Global News Wire” (GNW).

The Business of TV News

This is how APTN makes its money: news organizations (mostly TV but not all) subscribe to APTN and pay an annual amount to both watch and then re-use the stories that are fed over the GNW. The stories are supplied with sound, but no journalist to do a voice over. Most commercial news stations (like the BBC, SKY, Fox or CNN) would take this feed, decide which pictures to use then re-edit it and supply an appropriate voice over for the story. The video comes with a written description of the shots and the events that occur in them.

The fee for this feed depends on the size of the receiving organization, their audience size and a negotiation with APTN’s sales force. It is pretty much impossible, however, to operate a TV news organization without taking feeds from either APTN or Reuters or usually both. The agreement with APTN usually allows the receiving news channel unlimited use of the video for two weeks. If they want to re-show those pictures after that they have to separately license the pictures (which can cost anything from $100 to $10,000 per 30 seconds depending on the content).

A Separate Service for Arab States

However, there is another significant part of their business model that affects the rest of the business. While most of the world takes news pictures with minimal interpretation beyond editing, the Arab Gulf States have asked for and receive a different and far more expensive service. These states pay for a complete news report service including full editing and voice overs from known journalists. The news organizations in the Arab countries don’t do anything (beyond verify that they are appropriate for local tastes) before broadcast.

What this means is that while there are around 50 people producing news pictures for the whole world working in Camden at any time, there are a further 50 Arabic speaking staff producing finished stories exclusively for the Arab states of the gulf. This has a tremendous effect on the whole feel of the building as these two teams feed pictures and people back and forth and sit in adjacent work areas. The slant of the stories required by the Gulf States has a definite effect on which footage is used and discarded. This affects both the Gulf newsroom and the main global newsroom.

This full service feed is much more expensive for the customers than the usual service, but it is also much higher margin for APTN. This is partly because there is great commonality in what they can send to most of the Gulf States taking this service: stories are made once and used in a number of countries.

Disproportionately Negative Coverage of Israel

Anything involving Israel is a favorite with Gulf Arab states for showing to their viewers. Could this be the reason why Israel receives such a disproportionate amount of particularly negative coverage especially and increasingly ever since the early 1970’s? HonestReporting is usually unable to decide which is most biased: AP or BBC. As the BBC is often using APTN footage, the difference is minor. A significant twist to what is seen, concerns what is not seen. Footage such as the Palestinian mob joyfully lynching two Israeli reservists in Ramallah in October 2000 is held by APTN’s library: any attempt to license this film for reshow is carefully vetted. Requests for the use of “sensitive clips” are referred directly to the Library director. This is not the case with clips that paint Israel in a bad light. Likewise, the re-showing of Palestinian celebrations on 9/11 is considered “sensitive”.

The way in which raw footage such as APTN’s is compiled into a news report and sent round the world has also been analyzed. The Second Draft gives a comprehensive view of how editing can make all the difference. APTN is the gatekeeper that sits between you and the actual event. You will never see what the editors at APTN see before they compile your evening news. What do you think is cut out?

The Wrap-Up

Was this organization set up with this in-built bias on purpose? Is there some way that the expensive payments made by Gulf state governments form part of a deliberate attempt to skew the media?

In “Islam and Dhimmitude” (2002) by Bat Ye’or on p294-296 she recounts how decisions were taken in the wake of the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 to try to put across an anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist message. Successive conferences resolved to contribute vast sums “to universities, centers for Islamic studies, international communications agencies, and private and governmental organizations in order to win over world opinion.” (p296).

The messages from these conferences stressed an addition to the more familiar violent jihad: they also emphasized the importance of jihad by the written and spoken word—what we would recognize as classic propaganda. Without question APTN’s interesting business model represents a concrete example of an ongoing financial “contribution” to an important communication agency promoting a pro-Arab bias.

Posted by Kenenth on Monday, 12 March 2007 00:10:23

Dave,

I love many more than 2 things, and I guess you do too at heart. You love your daughter and Israel. That's a mighty good start. Love is good! It makes the world go round.

Me, I love it when Depleted Uranium dust with a half-life of 2.5 billion years doesn't float on the air currents from the munitions fired in the Middle East to the UK where my little boys are. Love doesn't make the DU go round the world!

Yet sometimes Dave, a thing we love can be capable of horrendous behaviour, while we remain in denial, blind as we are through love. Could that be true for you with israel, Dave? The interrnational community hates Israeli foreign policy, and frequently tries to rein it in, but the US vetoes all efforts.That can't be good Dave can it? Fair play is not really subjective, after all.

But Dave, I was really talking here on this media thread about media ownership. And I did preface for the delicate that I couldn't care if a man is a Jew, a Russian or a cross-dressing, one legged blue-skinned lesbian. I told you jews are no different from other races in terms of good and bad. Though I believe the Talmud might disagree on that one. Goyim?

However, the point I wanted to address was that rather than it being rare to see a western media story deliberately slanted in favour of the Israeli viewpoint, you rarely if ever see anything else. So why would you think otherwise? We all see what we want to see, Dave.

Now whether these 5 media moguls are dodgy Zionist or Jewish or Israeli-ish characters is irrelevant - but they do own the media. ALL the important international media. And they always give Israel's perspective as fact. That's why they fough to get control of the media.

But you covered the whole thrust of my post in a sentence and got onto the whole why are you picking on the zionists stuff. That worries me Dave. I point out again, this comment is to highlight the fact that almost all western media is owned by 5 zionist/jewish/Israeli rscals. Nothing to do with the Balfour Treaty etc. So why do you want to influence me to go easy on Zionists? Leave me to choose whether I want to mention Zionists and in what context.

You ask what I mean by Zionism. I already wrote how I defined it, but here you go. Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel (though not necessarily the ever-growing, aggressive one that now exists).

Zionism has also hijacked US foreign policy through AIPAC and has all the US congressmen in their pockets, forcing them to bend US foreign policy to fit this aggressive expansionism of Israel. It is the non-religious Zionism to which I refer. I was consciously trying to make the distinction between the Jews who stand up against the reckless foreign policy of the right-wing nutters in charge of Israel and the naughty rascals who perpetrate it and who have the media sewn up. Does this make sense? My effort seems to have the opposite effect with you Dave.

As I said, most major media outlets are owned by 5 massive multinationals whose owners are rascals - Rupert Murdoch, Gerald Levin, Michael Eisner, Harvey Weinstein, Edgar Bronfman......zionists to a man!!

As I said, Palestinians are semites, so my pointing out that Zionism is a political and financial statement of harsh intent is not antisemetic. Some Zionists are quick to pull the old antisemitism race card at the drop of a hat when anyone points of the naughties they get up to.

Now I pointed to a few sites so you could take a look for yourself that Zionist Jews own all the media. I did not say all the additional site content was true or false. You chose one section of one site and ignored the rest, including what I had invited you to look at. Why was that Dave?

But listen, let's put it in context. In the 17th century, the English dragoons cleared the Scottish highlands and killed everyone they caught - men, women, children, haggis etc. It was a haulocost. I didn't like it but it was a long time ago and I don't let it colour my view of the world. The 2nd world war was a long time ago too so I know little about the haulocost that killed 78 million worldwide. So why are you banging on about it now? And why don't you mention the other 72 million who were killed in WW2? The dead Dresden granny hit by a bomb from an RAF bomber in the war was murdered by a deliberate policy of murder too and her descendents loss equally valid.

In the event you decide you want to do the whole antisemite thing again, these are rhetorical points I am making.

The aim of my thread was to admonish you for crying about how hard done to Israel is in the media, when that is patently a ridiculous and laughable crock of the steamiest BS.

Posted by davidbaseone on Monday, 12 March 2007 10:42:39

Kenny.

A few points (out of another 100 I could make) before we leave it as I think you are beyond seeing my point and I for sure am well beyond seeing yours.

1)
"Now whether these 5 media moguls are dodgy Zionist or Jewish or Israeli-ish characters is irrelevant - but they do own the media."
I don't understand - in your previous post you said they WERE Zionists? Now you're saying it's not revelant what or who they are?

2) "blind as we are through love."
don't patronise me.

3) "You ask what I mean by Zionism. I already wrote how I defined it, but here you go. Zionism is an international political movement...."
I never realised you work for Wikipedia??
Serious point tho - not eveything you read onine is true and reading everything does not create a average and correct truth.

4) "You chose one section of one site and ignored the rest,"
I look at all your sites & checked other conspiracy sites that you refd in other posts & you seem to have a habit of finding sites with harmful content - so maybe, like friends you judge people by the sites they visit?

5) "The 2nd world war was a long time ago... So why are you banging on about it now"
this is the most incredibly ignorant and chilling thing you have said.

6) "In the event you decide you want to do the whole antisemite thing again"
Only you know what's in your heart - what you say you are and why you may say you're not.
for me though, you give me a very very bad feeling.

7) "Dave"
It's David - though after point (5) I'd prefer it if you didn't use either. There is clearly no point in communicating.

Posted by Kenenth on Monday, 12 March 2007 12:18:29

Dave

Both of us will 'leave it' as and when we see fit, I'm sure.

But seeing as you're special, I'll respond to your selective cherrypicking of my comments.

1) Seems to me the owners of the major media outlets are 5 Zionist Jews. Is that a bad thing Dave? You tell me - I think it is! But for the 10th time Dave, the point I am making is that a very small number of men have control of the media message we are all getting. It's not that they're zionists that's the problem, its that there are only 5 of them. It gives too much power to people whose outlook is far, far too similar. You said Israel gets short shrift from the media. I said that was obviously nonsense.

2) If you can admonish me, I can patronise you Dave.

3) I gave you a definition on zionism, you asked for another, so to save time I gave you wikepedia's. Given who owns Wikipedia, I thought you would might be happy with that.

4) What is harmful and what sites are harmful to whom Dave? Did the sites I pointed to kill 1.2 million Iraqi civilians since 1992? No, that was, er weapons and sanctions? Did the sites I pointed to kill a thousand Lebanese and fifty jews last summer? Did the sites I pointed to put Depleted Uranium into the atmosphere? No Dave, that was naughty rascals.

5) Dave, lighten up mate, you surely saw and deliverately ignored the point I was making, which was that the English massacred the Scots, all war is bad, the first world war, the second etc. War is a racket. No race is more special than the others. If you love Israel, that does not mean you have to love everything it does. Samme as I am British and don't think we should be invading other counrtries for oil etc.

6)If you think I'm being antisemetic, just say it Dave. But as I told you I don't care about a man's religion, race etc. You are suggesting something sinister, when really Dave that's a bit unfair. Do you think Israel is right to be in Palestine? Palestinians are semites. I believe Israel should be able to live in peace with its neighbours and that Jews, as with all other races should be free to commemorate their dead.

But you must be mental to think Israel gets a hard deal from the media.

7)Cheers "Dave"


8) One for me, Dave. I notice you avoided actually discussing:
Media ownership
Israeli apartheid
AIPAC
The International community attempting to rein in Israel's aggressive expansionism

But feel free not to bother if you're going to do the old antisemetic once trick again.

Posted by Kenenth on Monday, 12 March 2007 13:13:52

"I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs.

When they get on the top they are just as intolerant and cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath.

I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side."

Harry Truman

Posted by davidbaseone on Monday, 12 March 2007 13:24:57

Ken,

...you've driven everyone away with your hatred... you're replying to yourself... turn the lights off when you leave.

Posted by Kenenth on Monday, 12 March 2007 13:31:06

Ha Ha!

Hatred Dave? That's a bit strong.

I'm a pacifist!

The very few who came were all gone already mate, or hadn't you noticed?

Lights off!!

Posted by carlos on Monday, 12 March 2007 18:45:40

Israel is a very sensitive subject, and there is so much that clouds the waters. It has been hijacked by right wing ar$eholes, and as such much information, even if it is absolutely correct, get shunned, and put into the anti-semitic box.

However there is a clear distinction between Israel, and Judaism. Judaism is a peaceful religion practiced in various ways by millions of loving people. However there are large numbers that have adopted (maybe understandably) a bunker mentality to the world, and that somehow they are still 'under attack' and 'persecuted'. This is how the Israeli government maintains control over their populace, in a similar way that the fictitious war on terror keeps the west subverted.

To REALLY understand the Israel/Palestinian situation lets have a little history lesson: the irony of irony's is that ISRAEL WAS ONLY CREATED DUE TO TERRORISM. The British rule was subject to assassination, and other terrorist activity.
Even though the British allowed Jews to settle in Jerusalem after the 2nd world war, and it was governed by Britain, Muslim and jews lived side by side, but that wasn't enough for some; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Gang

So i personally find it a little hypocritical when Israeli's make such a deal out of Palestinians wanting the same, and using the very same tactics they used to have a state!!
Especially as Jews living in Jerusalem and the surrounding lands were not subject to the humiliation, squaller, and essentially lack of freedom that Palestinians are living under - directly caused by Israels TOTALLY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.

Israel has broken, and still continues to break more UN conventions than any other country in history - why should that be allowed. America vetoes anything that will restrain them.

No other country to my knowledge, uses a war ship to blatantly shell a family of a beach - just because Israel says they shouldn't be on that beach, even though it is Palestinian territory.
Or, which was on BBC news 24 just a couple days ago, using an 11 yr GIRL as a human shield at gun point to lead soldiers round the old city - it is a disgusting use of bullying power and might.... remember the story of David and Galliath - how far we have come!!!!!! again if it wasn't so evil, the irony would almost be laughable.
Or dropping MOST of the cluster bombs used in last yr's war with Lebanon in the last 24 hours of the battle - when a cease fire had already been arranged is not pure evil, please I'd like to know what is. This is still killing and maiming hundreds of women, and children - and will be for years to come.
Or to build a nuclear arsenal, totally against the world wishes (cough double standards... cough Iran), with the help of UK, France, and the U.S. And to illegally kidnap and imprison the whistle blower: to solitary confinement for a large part of a decade.

If the above examples are not clear reasons why Israel should get occasionally hard press, then I fear you cannot see the world objectively.

If Israel would just engage in the peace talks, without pontificating, and trying to justify their illegality. Give Palestinians the right to determine themselves in a truly democratic way - i.e not withholding taxes, or doing raids with the use of human shields. Then everyone in the area would be far safer. Until this happens you will get disenfranchised youths building home made rockets (advanced fireworks, compared to even the most basic of Israel's weaponry). It's akin to the trouble we have on our estates - if people have no perceivable future, they will become radicalised, and not act in a productive and peaceful way.. it's really very very obvious.
Living in a slum, under another nations control will ALWAYS BREED REBELLION, AND VIOLENCE. As all people just want to be free, and to live their life in an autonomous way.
Yes there will always be Palestinians who hate Israel, and will not accept it as a state. But again if you look back at history, when the first prime minister of Israel's took control of the state, he rounded up thousands of Palestinians and killed them, many more were raped. That will not be easy to forget, in EXACTLY the same way the holocaust will never be forgotten by the Jews, or the world.. alas the Palestinians haven't got such a powerful media force, and as such the history of the early years of Israel has somewhat been forgotten (ignored?) by the west.
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0494/9404075.htm

As I said to start, it is not an easy subject. But once again, we rarely are told ALL we really should be. As Orwell said, history is created by those that have the power.

 

Comment edited by carlos on Monday, 12 March 2007 18:57:03

Posted by IAmNoOne on Monday, 12 March 2007 19:37:51

Who told a Berlin audience in March 1912 that “each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews”?

No, not Adolf Hitler but Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist Organization and later still the first president of the state of Israel.

And where might you find the following assertion, originally composed in 1917 but republished as late as 1936: “The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline”?

Not in Der Stürmer but in the organ of the Zionist youth organization, Hashomer Hatzair.

Many more of these can be found in Lenni Brenner's excellent "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators", which can be read online here:

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm

It adequately shows that the "ordinary Jewish people" were as much pawns for political agendas as any people have ever been. And surely no-one with any sense can fail to have sympathy with ANY people who have been badly treated by their political masters. Sadly, too many Jews today have, as Carlos says, adopted a bunker mentality, and because they have access to a media which propogates only a pro-Jewish point of view (as Kenneth so rightly says 5 men, all Zionist Jews, control most of the world's major media outlets) then all they can see is attacks on themselves. A case in point being DavidBaseOne above. Sorry David, but I don't see that Kenneth said a single thing out of place - Zionist is not a dirty word unless you are so paranoid and brainwashed by a totally pro-Jewish media that you can't even see the word in print without seeing that as a personal attack.

I daresay my comment here, and Carlos' above, will be attacked by people too sensitive to see that we, and lots of others, are NOT criticising Jews, but criticising the policies and ideologies of a political system which has, and will use them and abuse them and cast them aside as surely as our own political system does to us.

Posted by Kenenth on Monday, 12 March 2007 19:40:18

...more hateful, chilling, ignorant and sinister propaganda from Kenenth:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html

Posted by Kenenth on Monday, 12 March 2007 19:50:05

There is indeed a real issue here...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code;=M.%2020070309&articleId;=5024