Archive for the ‘biased media’ Category

[Double standard at Arabist Media’s silence] PA forces shoot dead two Palestinians, including 5-year-old boy

October 14, 2007

[Double standard at Arabist Media’s silence]

PA forces shoot dead two Palestinians, including 5-year-old boyhttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/912380.html

 

Now imagine when/if US, British or Israeli forces do the same thing (in Iraq or in “palestine”)…
NYTimes/WashingtonPost/CNN/BBC would be busy for weeks!

Advertisements

The Arab Lobby Controls US Media and Foreign Policy

September 9, 2007

The Arab Lobby Controls US Media and Foreign Policy

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2007/09/arab-lobby-controls-us-media-abd.html

Last year Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities for programs in Islamic studies. The good prince also owns a chunk of Time/AOL the company who’s unit CNN employs the anti Israel Christiane Amanpour.In November of 2005, Fox’s O’Reilly showed live footage of the French Intifada as it raged in Paris. According to WorldNetDaily, Saudi billionaire Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, (aka Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin AbdulAziz AlSaud), who owns 5-6% of the Fox News Channel, personally called Rupert Murdoch and asked him to change the offensive (but accurate) caption: “Muslim Riots” to the less offensive (and less accurate) “Civil Riots.” Within thirty minutes, the Prince had his way.

In December 2005, Prince Al-Waleed donated $20 million each to Harvard University and Georgetown University to finance Islamic studies. The gift to Georgetown, which set up the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in his honor, was the university’s second-largest donation in history, and the gift to Harvard was among its 25 largest. Any idea of what the skew of thoses studies are.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is the largest single stockholder in Time and Citibank he is a one man Arab Lobby. But you wont hear Messers Walt and Mearsheimer talk about him or any of the other Saudi investors who challenge our free speech and influence American foreign policy.


What’s so nefarious about Jews exercising their right to speech?

What’s so nefarious about Jews exercising their right to speech?

By Jeff Robbins

September 7, 2007

A crop of Israel’s critics — most prominently Jimmy Carter and now Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” — have managed something of a feat: They express no concerns about the massive pro-Arab effort, funded in significant measure by foreign oil money, taking American Jews to task for participating in the American political process; meanwhile, they inoculate themselves against charges of anti-Jewish bias by pre-emptively predicting that “the Jewish lobby” will accuse them of it.

Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer, in particular, have been heralded by Israel’s critics for their “courage” in attacking American Jews, who have allegedly “strangled” criticism of Israel. Their case seems one part laughable, and one part eyebrow-raising.

An anecdote from my own experience with the anti-Israel lobby may shed some light on the absurdity of the Walt-Mearsheimer offensive. Not long after Sept. 11, 2001, I received a call from a major defense contractor asking for a favor. I was serving as president of the Boston chapter of the World Affairs Council, a national organization that debates foreign policy, and the defense contractor was one of the Council’s principal sponsors.

The Saudi Arabian government was sponsoring a national public relations campaign to cultivate American public opinion, and was sending Saudi emissaries around the country to make the case that Saudi Arabia was a tolerant, moderate nation worthy of American support. Would the Council organize a forum of Boston’s community leaders so that the Saudis could make their case?

While this was patently no more than a Saudi lobbying effort, we organized the forum, and it was well-attended by precisely the slice of Boston’s political and corporate elite that the Saudis and their defense contractor benefactor had hoped for. The Saudis maintained that their Kingdom should be regarded as a promoter of Middle East peace, and that the abundant evidence that Saudi Arabia was in fact promoting a virulent brand of extremist Islam should be discounted.

Saudi Arabia paid for the trip of its emissaries to Boston, for the Washington, D.C.-based public relations and lobbying company which organized the trip, and for the Boston public relations and lobbying company that handled the Boston part of the visit. And it drew upon the resources and relationships of the defense contractor, which sells hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, to support and orchestrate its public relations effort.

The billions in petrodollars Arab states spend in the U.S. for defense, construction, engineering and consulting contracts position them nicely to win friends in high places, and friends are what they have. That is true all over the world, is true in this country, and has been true for quite some time. As U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull noted 60 years ago, “The oil of Saudi Arabia constitutes one of the world’s great prizes.” His successor, Edward Stettinius, opposed the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East, stating “It would seriously prejudice our ability to afford protection to American interests, economic and commercial . . . throughout the area.”

The Saudis and their allies have not been shy about supplementing their considerable leverage in the U.S. by targeting expenditures to affect the debate over Middle East policy by funding think tanks, Middle East studies programs, advocacy groups, community centers and other institutions.

To take one obvious example, just last year Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities for programs in Islamic studies. Prince Alwaleed, chairman of a Riyadh-based conglomerate, is the fellow whose $10 million donation to the Twin Towers Fund following the Sept. 11 attacks was rejected by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after the Saudi Prince suggested that the U.S. “re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinians.”

Georgetown and Harvard had no apparent qualms about accepting Prince Alwaleed’s money. The director of Georgetown’s newly-renamed Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center rejected any suggestion that the Saudi magnate was attempting to use Saudi oil wealth to influence American policy in the Middle East. “There is nothing wrong with [Prince Alwaleed] expressing his opinion on American foreign policy,” he said. “Clearly, it was done in a constructive way.”

In other words, for those who accept the Arab line on the Israel-Arab conflict — namely, that it is the product of Israeli intransigence in some form or another — the increasing proliferation of Middle East-funded enterprises all across the country aimed at advancing the Arab view of the conflict constitute “nothing wrong.” Nor are those hewing to the anti-Israel line troubled by the way in which the massive Islamic bloc of nations, by dint both of their number and their economic leverage over the rest of the world, are able to guarantee an incessantly anti-Israel agenda at the United Nations and other international fora.

Although the aggressive deployment of petrodollars and oil-based influence from foreign sources aimed at advancing a pro-Arab line constitutes “nothing wrong” as far as Israel’s critics are concerned, a new political fashion holds that there is something very wrong indeed about American Jews and other American backers of Israel expressing their support for Israel, and urging their political leaders to join them in that support.

Our major newspapers and networks, with correspondents in Israel able to take advantage of an Israeli political system that is a free-for-all and an astonishingly vibrant and self-critical Israeli press, report daily on every twist and turn of the conflict and are very frequently critical of Israel. As for American campuses, most objective observers would have little difficulty concluding that far from being criticism-free, they are in fact dominated by critics of Israel. Clearly, as strangleholds on criticism go, whatever stranglehold the pro-Israel community has on debate in the U.S. is a very loose one indeed.

If the charge that American Jews are able to stifle criticism of Israel is simply silly, the leveling of the charge that there is something nefarious about Jews urging support for the Jewish state raises questions about whether Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer have descended into a certain ugliness. And the tactic of trying to neutralize those questions by loudly predicting that they will be asked, however clever a tactic it may be, does not neutralize them.

It is apparently the authors’ position that, even in the face of the overwhelming leverage of an Arab world swimming in petrodollars, with a lock on the U.N. and an unlimited ability to pay for pro-Arab public relations, American Jews are obliged to stay silent. In essence, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer have repackaged the “the-Jews-run-the-country” stuff which has long been the bread and butter of anti-Semites.

Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer deny that they are anti-Semitic, and that is certainly good news. But where they are apparently content with foreign oil money being used to advance a pro-Arab position on the Middle East, but devote themselves to criticizing American Jews for lobbying their public officials in support of the Jewish state, one may legitimately wonder what phrase would apply. Surely, one’s denial that he is anti-Semitic, while welcome, is hardly dispositive; after all, the marked increase in anti-Semitism around the world is well-documented, and yet one rarely hears anyone actually announce that they are anti-Semitic, or that their views are anti-Semitic.

But if anti-Semitism is too harsh a term, and if the word “bigoted” is also taken off the table, perhaps one can be forgiven for concluding that “anti-Jewish bias” fits the bill here. After all, where there is nothing wrong with foreign money from Arab countries advancing a pro-Arab agenda in Messrs. Walt’s and Mearsheimer’s world — but there is something very wrong with American citizens who are Jewish exercising their civic right to speak out on behalf of Israel and taking issue with the pro-Arab agenda — even the most vehement disclaimers of any bias against Jews lack a certain credibility.

The potency of the Middle East-funded anti-Israel lobby around the world and in the U.S. is difficult to ignore. Yet, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer and others who adhere to an anti-Israel line ignore it. In and of itself, this is not surprising. When at the same time they portray American Jews’ efforts to make the case for Israel as morally suspect, however, they open themselves up to reasonable charges of something far more troublesome than mere hypocrisy, and that is anti-Jewish bias, by whatever name.

Mr. Robbins, a U.S. Delegate to the U.N. Human Rights Commission during the Clinton administration, is an attorney at Mintz, Levin in Boston and represents David Project in the Islamic Society of Boston lawsuit.

Christanne Nonsense Network & silence on the most powerful lobby the ARAB LOBBY

September 4, 2007

Christanne Nonsense Network & silence on the most powerful lobby the ARAB LOBBY
AINA ^ | Sep. 2007

Not only did she avoid mentioning the Saudi (Arab) lobby, which is by far the most powerful lobby in America, but she also chose to solicit the opinions of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (himself a lobbyist for Arab causes), as well as professor Mearsheimer, both known for their controversial anti-Israel positions. Stunningly, no expert contradictory opinion to these two was offered during the six-hour program. It would have been just as easy for Amanpour to pose the same questions to Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz or Professor Fouad Ajami.

http://www.aina.org/news/2007082994324.htm

Technorati –

Christianne Amanpour nominated for ‘Emmy Award for Biggest Disappointment’? [God’s warriors?]

August 31, 2007

 Christianne Amanpour nominated for ‘Emmy Award for Biggest Disappointment’? [God’s warriors?]
JewishJournal ^ | August, 2007
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=18121

 

Is there an Emmy Award for Biggest Disappointment?If so, I nominate CNN’s three-part series, “God’s Warriors,” hosted or read or fronted — but certainly not reported – by Christiane Amanpour. The investigation – their claim – into radicals of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim persuasion was CNN’s highest-rated documentary ever, which just goes to show: Scratch any responsible news organization deep enough and you’ll find a shallow, sensationalizing ratings whore.The big reveal of the program was this: There are extremists out there ready to blow us up or hijack our elections.There was no analysis: not what these extremists have in common, not how they’ve risen and fallen throughout history; not how moderates can effectively counteract them, not even the relative numbers of extremists within each religion. Just this: they exist – as if we had never heard of Jerry Falwell and weren’t watching TV on Sept. 11.

As for Amanpour’s segment on God’s Jewish “warriors,” it managed to be both insidious and laughable. She rightly mentioned Jewish extremists like Baruch Goldstein, the doctor who slaughtered Muslims in prayer in Hebron, but failed to note that while the Israeli government and the vast majority of Jews take pains to prosecute and condemn their extremists, Muslim nations fund or sanction theirs.

Amanpour then focused on Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza who claim God deeded that land to the Jewish people and oppose giving up their homes under any circumstances. She failed to point out that it is indeed the Israeli government these people are fighting – theirs is not some global campaign to force Jewish law upon the West…

Read more at: JewishJournal 

CNN’s God’s Warriors at war with truth

August 30, 2007

CNN’s God’s Warriors at war with truth Jerusalem Post ^

8-26-07 R. Marvin Hier

West of Delancey http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?cat_id=&blog_id=63: CNN’s God’s Warriors at war with truth Posted by Rabbi Marvin Hier

A day prior to the airing of Christiane Amanpour’s six-hour CNN documentary entitled God’s Warriors, I was one of four clergymen to be a guest on Larry King Live to discuss the issue of fundamentalism in today’s world. The interview on Larry King was pre-recorded in mid-July and none of the participants had seen the six-hour documentary because it was still being edited. Now that I have seen it, I sent the following critique to the producers of God’s Warriors.

1. MORAL EQUIVALENCY – There is no moral equivalency between some 200 Israeli fanatics prone to violence and tens of thousands of Palestinian terrorists whose acts are endorsed by the elected government and a significant portion of the population. The failure of the documentary to clearly make that distinction skews the facts and conveys the false impression allowing people all over the world to conclude that there IS a moral equivalency between the number of Palestinian terrorists and Jewish terrorists – this is a complete distortion. More importantly, the largest terrorist group responsible for much of the unrest in the Middle East, Hamas, got a free pass from CNN in God’s Warriors and is not even mentioned in the documentary’s segment on Islam.

2. JEWISH LOBBY – CNN spends much time describing the strength of the “Jewish Lobby” in Washington. But what do supporters of Israel active on the Hill have to do with a documentary focusing on the power of religion? Indeed, many of those defending Israel on Capital Hill are, in fact, secular Jews. Furthermore, if you are going to talk about powerful lobbies, why not give equal time to the enormous power of the Arab Oil lobby?

3. SECURITY FENCE (Hamas Wall) – The consultants of the documentary make a point of showing the security fence that now separates the Palestinians from the Israelis. Palestinians interviewed explain the hardships they face and call the fence an “apartheid” wall. Nowhere is there a mention of the wide consensus of support for the security fence amongst all Israelis, left and right, including Israel’s Supreme Court, which has sanctioned the fence because, without it, the suicide bombings would continue unabated, something NO society can tolerate. Indeed, the terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are the real architects and designers of that fence.

4. FIGHTING TERRORISM – God’s Warrior’s makes mention of the fact that the few Jewish terrorists described in the film were all arrested by the Israeli government and sent to jail for their crimes. Yet, they ignore the fact that Palestinian officials have never convicted Palestinian terrorists. Had they done so, there would be no need for a security fence.

5. SIX DAY WAR – The documentary spends a lot of time on the Six Day War and emphasizes how Israel decided to attack the Old City during the War, which changed the status quo forever. But God’s Warriors fails to explain how or why the Six Day War started. It hides from its audience the fact that Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran (an international waterway), an act of war under international law, denying all shipping to Israel and that the Arab States, including Jordan, which controlled the Old City, brought their armies to the border. Had they not taken those actions, the Six Day War would have been averted. By ignoring all that and instead focusing on Israel’s attack on the Old City, God’s Warriors guides its audience to the conclusion that the purpose of the War was Israel’s intention to grab the Old City of Jerusalem.

6. SHARON – The documentary is critical of Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, which enraged Muslims and allegedly started the Second Intifada. It also mentions his “responsibility” in allowing Lebanese Christians to massacre Muslims at Sabra and Shatila. Yet, it ignores his critical decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in an attempt to jump start the peace process. Nor does it mention the Palestinian response to the withdrawal – the election of Hamas – a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel – as the new Palestinian government.

7. TEMPLE MOUNT – The documentary fails to emphasize that the Muslims, to whom Israel gave the authority to administer the Temple Mount, strongly discourage any Jew from coming there despite the fact that it is the holiest site in all of Judaism (whereas, the holiest sites in Islam are, in fact, Mecca and Medina). On the other hand, the Western Wall, which is under Israeli control, regularly welcomes visitors of all faiths.

8. RELIGIOUS LEADERS – CNN presents the senior Imam in charge of the Al-Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount, who explains the site’s holiness to Muslims. But rather than interview the Chief Rabbi of Israel to describe the sacredness of the site for Jews, CNN contents itself with allowing an extremist layperson to explain the importance of the Temple Mount to Jews. Where is the fairness?

9. TWO STATE SOLUTION – God’s Warriors ignores the origins of the Arab/Israeli conflict: the Arab refusal to accept the 1947 United Nations Partition of Palestine, which called for both a Jewish state and an Arab State. The Jews accepted the plan – the Arabs rejected it. Had the Arab world accepted the two-state solution then, much of the bloodshed would have been averted. There’s a lot of talk about settlements, but no talk at all of the consistent Arab policy from 1948 until 1978 to make no compromises with Israel.

10. A HUMAN FACE ON TERROR – God’s Warriors keeps mentioning the “despair” that many Arabs feel, as if that is a justification for the insane behavior of honoring people as martyrs because they murdered innocent civilians they never knew. Why patronize terrorists and even humanize them if we are going to allow the conversation to be dominated by their despair? The parents of these terrorists should be confronted with the simple truth that despair has existed throughout time – that billions of people throughout history have felt pain without reverting to mass murder. Following the defeat of Nazism, the Holocaust survivors were also in despair. They lost their families, but they didn’t resort to killing innocent civilians as a way of alleviating their pain. Neither did the 750,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries following the 1948 War – they too, did not become suicide bombers.

Technorati –

Re: Arabist Christianne Amanpour, Errors in CNN’s “G-d’s Jewish Warriors” Noted

August 30, 2007

Re: Araqbist Christianne Amanpour, Errors in CNN’s “G-d’s Jewish Warriors” Noted

by Hillel Fendel
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123512

(IsraelNN.com) http://CAMERA.org – the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America – has published a detailed, scathing attack on the two-hour television program “God’s Jewish Warriors.”

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour is the creator of a three-part CNN television series entitled “G-d’s Warriors.” The segment on Jews is the “most poisonously biased and factually shoddy feature to air on mainstream American television in recent memory,” writes CAMERA’s Executive Director Andrea Levin – and supports her claim with examples and refutations.

Levin begins by attacking the basic premise of the series, which purports to examine how Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious beliefs impact on the Middle East and the world. It is “deeply false,” she writes, to equate “Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency with that of Muslims heard endorsing ‘martyrdom,’ or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe… To demonstrate the supposed threat of Jewish fundamentalism, the few cases of Jewish terrorism – a handful spanning decades with each one overwhelmingly denounced by Israeli society and with those involved arrested, tried and jailed – are elaborated on at length and cast as a profound peril.”

Illegal, Illegal
Levin then focuses on Amanpour’s repeated emphasis on the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria and their supposed illegality – implying that just as extremist Moslems endanger the world with their terrorism, so do the Jews with their “settlements.”

“Throughout,” writes Levin, “Amanpour hammers the claim that Jewish settlements violate international law, and she seeks to paint this position as a universally accepted view with a lopsided parade of like-minded commentators. [However,] many legal scholars argue these communities are, in fact, legal… Such experts include Meir Shamgar, former Israeli Supreme Court Justice, internationally renowned legal scholar Professor Julius Stone and Former Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, among others. But not one scholar of this viewpoint is given voice in a two-hour feature largely devoted to decrying settlements and their residents.”

Levin then moves on to Amanpour’s presentation of US presidents speaking against the Jewish towns. “Ronald Reagan [is seen] making a tangential comment framed as agreeing” that “substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal,” Levin writes – while in fact, Reagan did not agree at all. Levin quotes Reagan, based on a February 1981 New York Times story, as having said explicitly, “I believe the settlements there… they’re not illegal.”

More Errors
Others of the report’s errors and deceptions noted by Levin:

* Jimmy Carter, whose recent incendiary allegations against Israel have been extensively debunked, declares that no Member of Congress could vote against aid to Israel “and hope to be reelected.” Amanpour does not remind him or the viewers of the numerous Members who have opposed aid to Israel and have been repeatedly reelected, including Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd and more than a dozen Representatives.

* Amanpour claims that former Pres. Bush opposed loan guarantees for Israel but collapsed under the weight of Jewish pressure and backed down. In fact, however, when Yitzchak Rabin was elected prime minister, he offered concessions that satisfied the Administration – such that it was Israel that back-tracked, not Bush.

* Amanpour declares that “the 40-year tug of war over Jerusalem began when Israel bulldozed the Arab neighborhood next to the Western Wall and built a plaza where Jews now pray.” Levin: “Obviously, the modern battle over Jerusalem “began” 60 years ago when the Arabs attacked in 1948 to destroy the newborn state of Israel, seizing the eastern side of Jerusalem, including the Jewish quarter of the old city. Every Jew was expelled or killed and all synagogues destroyed. Thereafter for 19 years, no Jew could pray at the Western Wall, and Christians had limited access to their holy sites.”

“CNN needs to correct every error and slander against Israel and its American supporters,” Levin demands. “More importantly, it needs to air an accurate and contextual documentary on these subjects, just as lavishly funded and promoted as Amanpour’s, that will set the record straight.”

Another CAMERA article comparing the “Warriors” programs on Jews and Muslims notes that while the former was heavily devoted to “the influence of pro-Israel activists in America, … Amanpour utterly neglected to report on the powerful Oil Lobby, primarily Saudi-backed, and numerous other Muslim organizations seeking to influence American public opinion and foreign policy decisions.”

Four Times More
CAMERA notes fascinatingly that Amanpour “harps on the phrase ‘Jewish warriors,’ repeating it 20 times in the first episode,” while mentioning “Muslim warriors” only four times in the second program. “Why does she utter the words ‘Jewish warrior’ five times more often than ‘Muslim warrior’ when violent Muslims have inflicted thousands of times more death and destruction in the world than violent Jews have?”

Furthermore, “There was a noticeably gentler and more cordial tone toward Muslim extremists, in contrast to the often snide and hectoring tone displayed toward pro-Israel Americans and Israeli settlers.”

“Amanpour included two apolitical segments with appealing devout Muslim women,” CAMERA wrote, “who talked about why they wear a head covering and how Islam enriches their lives. No such apolitical segment about devout Jews appeared in ‘God’s Jewish Warriors.'”

Technorati –

Hamas, Islamic Jihad & Hezbollah desperately in “need” of CREATING yet another ‘massacre’.

August 16, 2007

Hamas, Islamic Jihad & Hezbollah desperately in “need” of CREATING yet another ‘massacre’.

It seems that the Anti-Israel Islamists see themselves again in the grey routine which they hate, the world sees who they are, that the “struggle” they keep talking about is nothing but senseless violence & attempt of pure genocide.

Boy do they long for the days that the BBC wrote about “killing civilians in Lebanon”, though they all know too well what percentage of real “civilians” were there, they also know their success in getting Arab people in Lebanon killed, after all it was Islamists’ great “heroic” tactics of using the people of Lebanon as convenient shields to shoot out from babies’ rooms their “freedom fighting” arsenal, they are also the first to know about staged “massacres” playing to Reuters cameras, some of which have been already exposed, not to mention the building in Qana that fell only a significant time AFTER Israel returned fire, it’s obvious who is capable in killing own kids in order to make Israel look bad, the same type of “people” that killed Muhammad Al Dura that until exposed served a “good” icon in the Anti-Israel Intifada – Genocide campaign.

No matter the real facts, still they have proven again & again how their scores are high, the MSM falls for their criminal bloody theater – time & time again, and turn the finger on the victim – Israel.

Any wonder now we hear on the news that Hezbullah is eager to cause more Arabs to die?
As anything that will lead to a dead Arab kid is as good a Fatwa as any other “holy” Jihadi act against the infidel.

Hey, BBC, Prepare your articles already, write them — so predictable ahead of time, Why waste time? start bashing the Zionists already before anything happens, as you can’t wait.

____

Hizbullah says still can strike any spot in Israel
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3428609,00.html

The bias language of dishonest CNN’s headlines in reporting on “Palestinian terrorism”

July 29, 2007

The bias language of dishonest CNN’s headlines in reporting on “Palestinian terrorism”.

This is the usual nonsense, but it’s important to highlight it one in a while.

Here you have again, one of the most noticable biased headlines on CNN, see the difference in reporting on fighting “Palestinian” terrorists.

The headlines (http://www.cnn.com/HLN/) of Saturday evening (July 28 2007, 9:29/10:29 PM ET) on CNN’s headlines:

1) Leb. kills 8 militants in refugee camp.

2) Israeli troops kill 2 Palestinians in Gaza.

This means that whenever other Arabs fight “Palestinians”, the “Palestinian” Arabs are being defined Islamic militants, but whemn Israel fights for it’s survivals from Genocidal “Palestinian” terrorists, the terrorists are then (all of a sudden) being coated with such plain titles as: “Palerstinian people”.

There you have it, Arabism.

Arabist BBC accused of Anti-Israel Bias – Shameful

April 1, 2007

Arabist BBC pays a huge sum in a bid to try and “win” in court over overwhelming documentation of anti Israel SHAMEFUL bias

BBC accused of

Anti-Israel Bias – Shameful!

By

http://dvorak.org/

BBC pays £200,000 to ‘cover up report on anti-Israel bias’ – DailyMail.co.uk: This is not the first time the blog has posted stories about the bias in the coverage from the BBC, and now there’s this.

The BBC has been accused of “shameful hypocrisy” over its decision to spend £200,000 blocking a freedom of information (FOI) request about its reporting in the Middle East.

The corporation, which has itself made extensive use of FOI requests in its journalism, is refusing to release papers about an internal inquiry into whether its reporting has been biased towards Palestine.

The corporation is fighting a landmark High Court action, which starts next week, in a bid to prevent the public finding out what is in the review, which is believed to be critical of the BBC’s coverage in the region.

The BBC’s determination to bury the report has led to speculation that the report was damning in its assessment of the BBC’s coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict that the BBC wants to keep it under wraps at all costs.

_________________________________

BBC mounts court fight to keep ‘critical’ report secret http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nbeeb15.xml

Nailing the BBC’s Anti-Western Bias http://newsbusters.org/node/11444
____________________________

BBC Anti-Israel Bias Documented
http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/BBC_bias.htm

BBC accused of bias against Israel Israel and the Middle East – http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1183312,00.html

Technorati –

The Guardian’s obsession in adopting “Palestinianism”, big words on empty reality

March 25, 2007

The Guardian’s obsession in adopting “Palestinianism”, big words on empty reality

The Guardian’s obsession in adopting “Palestinianism”, big words on empty reality

* “Apartheid” -, the Guardian was/is obsessed to use it in every opportunity at Israel’s survival war against racist terrorism by Arabs (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Guardian_Promotes_Apartheid_Slur.asp Guardian Promotes Apartheid Slur), long before the bribing by the Arab lobby of former US president, the infamous Jimmy Carter to use the word “apartheid” as a title of his anti-Israel bigoted book.
Facts of equal rights & equal treatment of Arabs in Israel, that even Carter has admitted (interview with former President Jimmy Carter. … “I recognize Israel is a wonderful democracy with freedom of speech and equality of treatment … ” http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/13/ltm.01.html ), doesn’t matter.
* “Racism” – as in ‘Arab racists nations decrying “racism” of Israel’s defense in Durban… (on that country which is multi-racial), “racism” is grabbed at any opportunity at the biased ‘The Guardian’.
A prime example might be the case of ‘Palestinian’ Arab marrying an Israeli Arab, the question of residence / restrictions in Israel, facing of the menace of genocide by ‘Palestinian’ bombers, never mind the ridiculous term “racism” at a time when both parties are the exact same Arabs, or of Arab “race”.
_________
Related:
The Guardian’s Demonization Campaign
Creating a Palestinian Apartheid State?
Israel, No “apartheid” here!
The Economist has gone the way of The Guardian and The Independent, the country’s far-left broadsheets

An Arab bus driver from Gaza deliberately slammed his vehicle into a group of people waiting at a bus stop near Tel-Aviv, murdering seven and injuring many more. The driver himself stated that he did it purposely and with intent to kill. But Suzanne Goldenberg, of the British newspaper The Guardian, rejected his confession and insisted that he was “no terrorist” but merely had an accident caused by taking medication that made him drowsy.

the Guardian, the Independent and the BBC are all anti-Israeli
Making a “criminal” out of Saint Israel
Israel the GEM, Multi-racial, freedom, Equality for all, The Democratic humanitarian free oasis in the racist fascist totalitarian oppressive jungle of the Middle east
Israeli Society Modern Israel is a vibrant and complex multi-ethnic, multi-racial, … As a democracy Israel has a democratically elected parliament–the Knesset…
 

Technorati –