Archive for the ‘Iraq’ Category

Walter Russell Mead : Why Israel never ‘supported’ Iraq war!

November 4, 2007

Walter Russell Mead : Why Israel never ‘supported’ Iraq war!

Nov. 2007
Walter Russell Mead [author of ‘God & Gold’ – How Anglo-Saxons Chased Gold, Praised God, Stoked `Waspophobia’ (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6lK8dtDfiQk) replied to Mike Schneider’s ‘Night Talk’ on bloomberg TV [http://www.bloomberg.com/media/tv/schedule_us.html]

Mike: ‘What do you say to those criticis that say that there are some ties anmong Cheney the neocon and some in the others the ‘Israel lobby’?

Walter: Not true, in fact Israelis & pro Israeli activists always said that Iran is THE threat, during my visits to Israel and being over here, I can tell you, they were actually very worried the entire time letting to and during the war in Iraq, that it might hurt actions pressuring Iran.

As to Cheney couldn’t care less what’s going on in Israel-palestinian front, he was defiined as a lobbyist for the Oil, not anything else.

__________

More on Walter:

Walter Russell Mead on Mearsheimer and Walt, academic freedom, and the Zionist spectre (by Jeff Weintraub)

1. I notice that the latest issue of Foreign Affairs (dated November/December 2007) carries a devastating review of Mearsheimer and Walt’s ‘Israel Lobby’ manifesto by Walter Russell Mead. Mead’s critique is rendered especially devastating by the fact that he bends over backward to give M&W the benefit of the doubt in many ways, accepts that their aims and agenda are entirely well-intentioned (even when such an assessment seems a little strained and implausible), and recognizes when they have tried to address issues that really do need to be addressed (but addressed more intelligently and less tendentiously).

As I have noted in the past (here, for example), many defences of Mearsheimer and Walt’s ‘Israel Lobby’ manifesto, both in their original 2006 article and in the new book-length version, try to shift the ground by reframing M&W’s position in a way that jettisons their most central and incendiary claims and makes their arguments sound more plausible and common-sensical than they actually are. Then, in effect, these writers defend the work that they would have liked to see M&W write – a sober, accurate, intellectually careful, and solidly argued critique of US policies toward Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict – rather than the shoddy, irresponsible, tendentious, and pernicious piece of work that M&W actually wrote. But defences of this sort necessarily involve a certain amount of pretence and prevarication, including attempts to bowdlerize M&W’s arguments and to either ignore or skim over their more outrageous and indefensible claims (for example, blaming the Iraq war on American Jews who support Israel).

Other reviewers have been honest enough to say that they wish that M&W, or someone else, had written the kind of serious critical analysis they wanted to see – but that M&W’s actual manifesto doesn’t fit the bill. (Some early examples were disappointed reviews of the original article by Adam Shatz and Michelle Goldberg back in 2006; a good recent example is the somewhat appalled critique of M&W’s book by the long-time Peace Now activist Leonard Fein.)

Mead’s review has the virtue of addressing M&W’s actual arguments, rather than pretending that they simply consist of a sober critique of AIPAC. (For some other useful critiques, see here.)

2. In addition, Mead has something brief but illuminating to say about a related set of issues.

Lately there has been a lot of foolish talk suggesting that any voices that try to be critical of Israel, or of US policies toward Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, are stifled or suppressed in American academic and intellectual life. (Some people even try to suggest that this is true in western European countries like Britain, but that notion fails the most basic laugh test.) With respect to the academy in particular, even some normally sensible people seem to have swallowed, or at least half-swallowed, the notion that undue interference by ‘Zionists’ (real or alleged) poses a major threat to academic freedom in the US. What is actually involved, in too many cases, is an effort to discredit or intimidate people who seek to criticize anti-Zionism (that is, the demonization of Israel and its supporters) or anti-Semitism too vigorously.

Like many propaganda campaigns, this one has tended to seize on a few incidents and anecdotes, some legitimately worrisome and others more or less fanciful, and to inflate them out of proportion. These include the denial of tenure to Norman Finkelstein at DePaul University (which may indeed have some genuinely troubling aspects, as Norm and others have pointed out, despite the fact that Finkelstein himself is, in my possibly fallible opinion, an obnoxious, abusive, and poisonous academic charlatan) and the truly idiotic decision by St Thomas University to cancel an appearance by Desmond Tutu for fear he might offend some Jews (a decision that has since been rescinded, not unlike the recent reversal of an even more egregious decision by the administration of Leeds University in Britain to cancel a talk by Matthias Küntzel about the history of anti-Semitism in the Middle East on the grounds that it might offend some Muslims). At the more purely ridiculous end of the spectrum are attempts to pretend that criticisms of M&W are somehow illegitimate and amount to ‘muzzling’ them.

There are certainly a great many real threats to academic freedom and to freedom of expression more generally, in the US and elsewhere. (What else is new? Consider, for example, the perennial campaigns in Britain to institute blacklists of Israeli academics.) Some supporters of Israel undoubtedly do their best to be part of the problem, and when they do they should be criticized and resisted. But to suggest that supporters of Israel are a major source of threats to academic freedom – perhaps even among the most dangerous – is either silly or deliberately tendentious. As Mead points out, to find such a picture plausible requires wilfully ignoring the larger context of ideological cross-pressures in academic and intellectual life.

This artificial anti-Zionist panic also ignores a wider problem that really does pose a threat to academic freedom and to freedom of expression more generally – the growing acceptance of a seductive but unfortunate notion that everyone has a right not to be offended. This point should be obvious, but apparently it isn’t, and Mead makes it quite trenchantly.

One problem is that Mearsheimer and Walt decontextualize the activity of Jews and their allies. Attempts by pro-Zionist students and pressure groups to challenge university decisions to grant tenure or otherwise reward professors deemed too pro-Arab are portrayed as yet another sign of the long reach and dangerous power of the octopus. In fact, these efforts are part of a much broader, and deeply deplorable, trend in American education, by which every ethnic, religious, and sexual group seeks to define the bounds of acceptable discourse. African Americans, Native Americans, feminists, lesbian, gay, and transgendered persons – organizations purporting to represent these groups and many others have done their best to drive speakers, professors, and textbooks with the “wrong” views out of the academy. Zionists have actually come relatively late to this particular pander fest, and they are notable chiefly for their relatively weak performance in the perverse drive to block free speech on campus.

As one illustrative example from DePaul University, Prof. Finkelstein’s former employer, there is the well-known case of Thomas Klocek – who, to quote Wikipedia’s succinct and accurate description, ‘is a former adjunct professor at DePaul University fired for arguing with Muslim and Palestinian students [about Israel] outside the classroom.’ (Of course, some might argue that adjunct faculty ipso facto have no rights to academic freedom. But on the other hand, for those who claim that the real danger of alleged Zionist intimidation is the ‘chilling effect’ it has on free expression in academia and in public discourse more generally, such details should be immaterial… so perhaps those people would like to sign this petition on Klocek’s behalf?)

Another example, having no direct connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict, was the recent successful campaign to rescind Larry Summers‘s invitation to address the UC Regents. Trivial stuff… but just as trivial as the decision by the Polish consulate in NYC to cancel a lecture by Tony Judt. Neither of these gentlemen has exactly been muzzled… though, on the other hand, it is clear in retrospect that Summers’s criticism of extremist anti-Zionists was one of the factors that led him to eventually lose his job as President of Harvard.

Overall, what unites such cases is that, for academic administrators and others, fear of controversy plays a bigger role in decisions of this sort than substantive biases. The response of academics and intellectuals to such reflexes, and to well-meaning ideologies that reinforce them by implying that everyone has a right not to be offended, should be a principled and consistent defence of academic freedom and freedom of expression – not the selective demonization of people who have the temerity to criticize anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism. (Jeff Weintraub)

Technorati –

To the Arab Muslim anti-Israel propagandist:

October 28, 2007

To the Arab Muslim anti-Israel propagandist:

1) Are you denying that the Arab racist attacks on Jews in Israel/”palestine” has started since 1838 (Safed) [so were the attacks in 1883, 1920, 1921, 1929 – Hebron, etc.]? 2) Had Israel be a (mostly) Arab-Muslim State, would the intolerant Arab-Muslim Goliath world not accept them?

3) Why is there a complete silence on the historical fact of Arab immigration late 1800s early 1900s into Israel/”palestine”?

4) What anti-Israel bigotry is stronger, the “Arab racism”; factor? or the ‘Islamic-Jihad’ factor?

5) ‘Moral equivalence’ Do you have Arab activists on behalf of Israeli victims, just like you have Jewish, Israeli, Zionists activists for the (so called) ‘Palestinian cause’ (whatever that is…)?

6) If humane Israel would really go after “unarmed poor palestinians” as the ‘Pallwood’ propagandists tell us, How many Arabs would have survived Israel’s might?

7) Who’s more at fault, the Arab Muslim “Palestinians” parents pushing for Shahid-isim, or the indoctrinating Mullahs, Imams in the holy Mosques for using “Palestinian” kids and women as human bombs and as human shields (so they can blame the Zionists when Arab kids die)?

8] What would have happened if Arab Muslim “Palestinians” would have invested as much energy in rebuilding their lives as they do in destroying both nations’ lives in fascistic Jihad, total hatred and campaign for GENOCIDE [to “drink the blood of the Jews” or to “push them all to the sea”, or to “wipe them off of map”]?

9) Why does “bad” IDF Israeli army announce an area residents’ civilians to evacuate before an operation against terrorists?

10) Why did Humane Israel’s IDF invented specially low range missiles designed to hit ONLY the [terror] target and minimize collateral damage?

11) When was the last time the “Palestinian” well oil-ed propaganda machine has retracted [or even apologized] for it’s usual PALLYWOOD fake images industry?

12) What’s the difference between a Christian in Indonesia, Buddhist in Thailand, Christian in Nigeria, in Philippines, Australians in Bali (2002), non Muslims in London (0707/2005), in Madrid (bombing), “not the-right-kind-of-Muslims” in Shiite-Sunni hateful massacres in Iraq, oppression & massacres in the “Islamic Republic of Iran”, and Israeli victims of the same “evil ideology”?

13) What’s a harder oppression, your “average” Arab Muslim regime’s on it’s own people, Hamas-tan Islamic Apartheid [which most “Palestinians” supported!] on non Muslims, or the pro-Jihad parents’ on their kids?

14) What would have happened if at least ONE Arab Muslim nation [regular or oil-ed one] would really care about the Arab [brothers, that since the 1960’s started to call themselves as] “Palestinians” and let them get off the terror slum into normality and even prosperity?

15) What part of ‘BLIND FASCISM’ do Arab-Muslims deny, the usual obsessed anti Israel demonization [no matter what Israel does] or the reluctance to see Israel’s super kind gestures for those that are trying to kill them [releases from prison, giving away own land vital to it’s security, humanitarian aid, etc.] not as goodness but as “weakness”?

16) Why is it that when Islamists terrorists [Hamas or Hezbullah, Islamic Jihad, etc.] succeed in making sure Arab kids die [with their known tactics of cowardly firing among or behind children, etc.] the Arabs, Muslims rejoice and the Israelis, Jews are saddened ?

16) How can land be an issue [or the blatant lies the Arab lobby’s financed: Jimmy Carter has said, though he admitted that Israel is a great equal democracy for all, Arabs and Jews alike!’] if “moderate” Palestinian official government still has venomous hatred and pro ‘death cult’ in it’s regular curriculum and on it’s official TV, or that such “moderate” Arab media outlets [like Al Jazeera] still glorify mass murder as “martyrdom”?

17) Who’s more powerful, the Arab Muslim Goliath Oil mafia “lobby” on the world or a Chinese, Italian, Israeli, Irish, pharmaceutical, cigarettes lobbyists in Washington?

18) Had the International Arab Muslim lobby of nations in the UN [or the EU] not threatened other nations to bash Israel 24/7 [motivated by intolerance only!], What would be then the outcome?

Technorati –

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.

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 –

(GEM humanitarian) Israel approves West Bank refuge for Palestinians fleeing Iraq

August 1, 2007

(GEM humanitarian) Israel approves West Bank refuge for Palestinians fleeing Iraq http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/30/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Palestinians-Iraq.php