War is deception. – The Prophet Mohammed
Islamist, neo-Nazi and al-Taqwa director Achmed Huber made a prediction in a 2002 news article: “The U.S. is the ally of 15 million Jews against 1.3 billion Muslims; it is allied with 5 million Israelis against 200 million Arabs. . . We will bring down the Israel lobby and change foreign policy. We’ll do it in America. When it happens, you’ll understand.” This broadcast develops the argument that Huber’s prediction is indeed coming true, utilizing (among other devices) distorted media coverage tailored to inflame public opinion. Referencing the Nazi tract Serpent’s Walk, the program compares the coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict with the O.J. Simpson case, both dramatically affected by blatant, deeply prejudiced advocacy journalism.
In recent years, journalistic coverage of the Middle East conflict has featured emblematic and sensational stories of Israeli atrocities. What has received little coverage is the fact that many of them were either falsified or greatly embellished to generate anti-Israeli sentiment. The France2 broadcast of the alleged killing of Mohamed Al Dura by Israeli troops has been ruled fraudulent by a French appellate court. The tragic death of Rachel Corrie, the alleged Israeli attack on an ambulance during the Lebanon war of 2006, the “killing” of children at Qana during that same conflict and–most recently–the coverage of Palestinian casualties during the Gaza war have either been utterly fabricated or strategically distorted. These media events are the “Palestinian pornography” referred to in the broadcast’s title.
Particularly noteworthy is the fact that some of these incidents such as the Qana “non-massacre” of 2006 and the alleged shelling of U.N. facilities and vehicles during the recent Gaza war have proved apparently decisive in persuading the Israelis to conclude the conflict before achieving their strategic aims.
Revealing also is the fact that when Hamas kills Palestinian rivals of the Fatah organization it does not generate the same degree of outrage or media attention.
After discussing an Internet story/rumor that has been circulating for a number of years concerning a direct Nazi heritage for Karl Rove, the program notes a significant development–the decisive effect of collateral damage to Palestinian civilians–real, embellished, provoked or fabricated–with regard to the actual tactical and strategic conduct of the conflict. As was the case in the 2006 Lebanon war against Hezbollah (whose youth wing is pictured in this photo essay from Time magazine) during which a largely fabricated incident at Qana helped precipitate the Israeli withdrawal, incidents such as the shelling of a UN school helped to halt the Israeli offensive in Gaza. According to witnesses, that shelling was deliberately drawn by Hamas fire. After the recording and broadcast of the program, the U.N. retracted its claim, clarifying that the shells fell outside the compound!
In addition to that incident and a pattern of Hamas combatants dressing like civilians and utilizing civilian installations as munitions or firing positions (actions designated as war crimes), there have been a number of falsified incidents such as a “doctor” supposedly administering CPR to a wounded civilian and a supermarket supposedly devoid of food.
Corriere della Sera–Italy’s largest and most respected daily–reported that the actual Palestinian death toll was closer to 600 (not 1300) and that most of the dead were Hamas fighters.
Among the factors distorting coverage of the war is the fact that much of the coverage in the U.S. accessed an AP reporter named Ibrahim Barzak, a longtime Palestinian resident of Gaza, whose home was badly damaged in the fighting! Hardly an objective source. Another major media source alleging Israeli war crimes was a Norwegian physician who felt that the 9/11 attacks were justified!
Of paramount importance in assessing the Gaza war of 2008-09 is the fact that Hamas and its Muslim Brotherhood parent emerged the strategic victor, due to the false perception generated by the coverage of the conflict, particularly those in the Arab street.
Program Highlights Include: Analysis of TV host Jon Stewart’s ridiculous and destructively false analysis of the conflict; review of the Associated Press Television News Service and its decisive influence on coverage of the Middle East conflict; review of comparison between key points of information in both the O.J. Simpson case and the Israeli/Arab conflict–points of information of which most people are not aware; review of the anti Semitic perceptions presented in Serpent’s Walk.
1. Tackling an Internet story that’s made the rounds for the last five years, the program sets forth allegations that Karl Rove has an overt Nazi heritage. [This turned out to be disinformation, as I suspected–D.E.]
” . . . Karl Rove has parallel ties. The shadowy Rove serves as ‘Bush’s Brain’ in the current White House. He is the political mastermind behind the California coup, and is now in the headlines for outing Valerie Plame, the CIA wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. A consummate strategist, Rove may have outed Plame in retaliation for Wilson’s failure to back up the Bush claim that Saddam Hussein was buying nuclear weapons materials in Africa. According to some published reports, as many as seventy CIA operatives have been put at risk by Rove’s retaliatory strike.
According to Wilson, and to Retired U.S. Navy Lt. Commander Al Martin (www.almartinraw.com), Rove’s grandfather was Karl Heinz Roverer, the Gauleiter of Oldenburg. Roverer was Reich-Statthalter — Nazi State Party Chairman — for his region. He was also a partner and senior engineer in the Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurburo A. G. engineering firm, which built the Birkenau death camp, at which tens of thousands of Jews, Gypsies, dissidents and other were slaughtered en masse. . . . “
2. Before entering into discussion of the recent Gaza war, the program accesses a column by New York Times columnist Ethan Bronner, in which he sets forth his own frustration at the seeming inability of partisans of the two sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to moderate their views.
“Faisal Husseini, a Palestinian leader who died at the start of this decade, used to tell a story about his first visit to Israel. The 1967 war had just ended, borders were suddenly opened and he took a drive to Tel Aviv, where at some point he found himself detained by an Israeli policeman. Questions and answers ensued. At one point the policeman said to him, ‘As a proud Zionist, I must tell you ….’At which Mr. Husseini burst out laughing.
What’s so funny? the policeman asked. ‘I have never in my life,’ Mr. Husseini replied, ‘heard anyone refer to Zionism with anything but contempt. I had no idea you could be a proud Zionist.’
I have written about the Arab-Israeli conflict on and off for more than a quarter-century and have spent the past four weeks covering Israel’s war in Gaza. For me, Mr. Husseini’s story sums up how the two sides speak in two distinct tongues, how the very words they use mean opposite things to each other, and how the war of language can confound a reporter’s attempts to narrate — or a new president’s attempts to mediate — this conflict in a way both sides can accept as fair.
Among Israel’s Jews, there is almost no higher value than Zionism. The word is bathed in a celestial glow, suggesting selflessness and nobility. But go anywhere else in the Middle East and Zionism stands for theft, oppression, racist exclusionism.
No place, date or event in this conflicted land is spoken of in a common language. The barrier snaking across and inside the West Bank is a wall to Palestinians, a fence to Israelis. The holiest site in Jerusalem is the Temple Mount to Jews, the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims. The 1948 conflict that created Israel is one side’s War of Independence, the Catastrophe for the other.
After Israel’s three-week air, sea and land assault in Gaza, aimed at halting Hamas rocket fire, it is worth pausing to note how difficult it has been to narrate this war in a fashion others view as neutral, and to contemplate what that means for any attempt by the new Obama administration to try to end it.
It turns out that both narration and mediation require common ground. But trying to tell the story so that both sides can hear it in the same way feels more and more to me like a Greek tragedy in which I play the despised chorus. It feels like I am only fanning the flames, adding to the misunderstandings and mutual antagonism with every word I write because the fervent inner voice of each side is so loud that it drowns everything else out. . . .”
3. Tackling the substance of the Gaza war itself, the program notes a significant development–the decisive effect of collateral damage to Palestinian civilians–real, embellished, provoked or fabricated–with regard to the actual tactical and strategic conduct of the conflict. The shelling of a UN school in Gaza may well have been provoked and was certainly a key element in helping to precipitate the Israeli ceasefire and withdrawal. After the recording and broadcast of the program, the U.N. retracted its claim, clarifying that the shells fell outside the compound!
” . . . Until now, the international community–including Egypt–has given Israel a long leash to strike a heavy blow against Hamas. But with the shelling of the U.N. school in the northern Gaza town of Jebaliya on Tuesday, the clock might start ticking for Israel to withdraw its troops. . . . The Foreign Ministry also said it had good reason for targeting the school. ‘Initial investigations indicate that Hamas terrorists fired mortar bombs from the area of the school towards Israeli forces, who returned fire towards the source of the shooting. The Israeli return fire landed outside the school, yet a series of explosions followed, indicating the probable presence of munitions and explosives in the building.’
The Israeli army also accused Hamas of ‘cynically’ using civilians Imad Abu Askar and Hasan Abu Askar, ‘two known Hamas mortar crewmen,’ the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. two neighborhoods residents who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared for their safety, confirmed the Israeli account, telling the Associated Press that a group of militants fired mortar rounds from a street near the school, then fled into a crowd of people in the streets. . . .
‘A ground invasion was expected and, in some Hamas quarters, hoped for,’ said the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based organization engaged in conflict resolution, in a position paper published this week. ‘The islamist movement hopes to reap political benefit from material losses It knows it is no military match for Israel but it can claim victory by withstanding the unprecedented onslaught.’
Shlomo Brom, the former head of the strategic planning division of the Israeli army, said minimizing civilian casualties requires ‘a combination of excellent intelligence, very accurate weapons systems and very good planning that takes into account collateral damage. Mistakes are bound to happen, and they will happen in this war.’ Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan Univesity in Ramag Gan, said the strike against the U.N. school and ensuing diplomatic pressure it could crate were not only foreseen but discussed in advance by israeli policymakers.
‘There were many meetings on how to deal with this before the fighting started. It happens every time. The effect this time very much depends on how the story plays out in the next 24 hours,’ said Steinber. ‘If organizations like Amnesty (International) and Human Rights Wach give this issue much greater visibility as they have in the past, the pressure on Israel will build and it will have some impact, but if it’s strictly Palestinian claims it won’t have much effect.’ But international pressure is mounting. . . .”
“Gaza School Attack Could Be a Trigger for Israeli Pullout” by Matthew Kalman; San Francisco Chronicle; 1/07/2009.
4. Hamas has deliberately precipitated situations in which civilians would be exposed to Israeli retaliatory fire.
“The grinding urban battle unfolding in the densely populated Gaza Strip is a war of new tactics, quick adaptation and lethal tricks.
Hamas, with training from Iran and Hezbollah, has used the last two years to turn Gaza into a deadly maze of tunnels, booby traps and sophisticated roadside bombs. Weapons are hidden in mosques, schoolyards and civilian houses, and the leadership’s war room is a bunker beneath Gaza’s largest hospital, Israeli intelligence officials say.
Unwilling to take Israel’s bait and come into the open, Hamas militants are fighting in civilian clothes; even the police have been ordered to take off their uniforms. The militants emerge from tunnels to shoot automatic weapons or antitank missiles, then disappear back inside, hoping to lure the Israeli soldiers with their fire. . . .
Israeli press officers call the tactics of Hamas cynical, illegal and inhumane; even Israel’s critics agree that Hamas’s regular use of rockets to fire at civilians in Israel, and its use of civilians as shields in Gaza, are also violations of the rules of war. Israeli military men and analysts say that its urban guerrilla tactics, including the widespread use of civilian structures and tunnels, are deliberate and come from the Iranian Army’s tactical training and the lessons of the 2006 war between Israel and Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Hamas rocket and weapons caches, including rocket launchers, have been discovered in and under mosques, schools and civilian homes, the army says. The Israeli intelligence chief, Yuval Diskin, in a report to the Israeli cabinet, said that the Gaza-based leadership of Hamas was in underground housing beneath the No. 2 building of Shifa Hospital, the largest in Gaza. That allegation cannot be confirmed.
While The New York Times and some other news organizations have local or Gaza-based Palestinian correspondents, any Israeli citizen or Israeli with dual citizenship has been banned for more than two years from entering Gaza, and any foreign correspondent who did not enter the territory before a six-month cease-fire with Hamas ended last month has not been allowed in. . . .”
5. Realizing the strategic goals set forth in Serpent’s Walk–the gambits highlighted above, coupled with favorably distorted news coverage by the “opinion-forming media” are realizing the vision of al-Taqwa director, Islamist and neo-Nazi Achmed Huber. For The Record has long presented the case that, like The Turner Diaries, a companion volume published by National Vanguard Books, Serpent’s Walk is in fact a blueprint and manifesto detailing Underground Reich strategy for its foot soldiers.
“The U.S. is the ally of 15 million Jews against 1.3 billion Muslims; it is allied with 5 million Israelis against 200 million Arabs. . . We will bring down the Israel lobby and change foreign policy. We’ll do it in America. When it happens, you’ll understand.”
6. A nauseating but telling event supporting the theory that Huber’s words are accurate, the bad PR that Israel has experienced has been exacerbated by the comments of Jon Stewart, the host of the “Daily Show.” Demonstrating the superficial, trivializing nature of the medium of TV, Stewart (nee “Leibowitz”) intoned to the great acclaim of his audience that Israel attacked Gaza to inflict civilian carnage before Barack Obama assumed the presidency. In fact, the timing of the Israeli action had far more to do with the February Israeli elections, with the right-wing Likud Party having been the odds-on favorite to win, as recently as September. (As of early February of 2009–the week before the elections–Likud and Kadima were in a virtual dead heat.)
“As war rages between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and President-elect Barack Obama counts down the days until he has to deal directly with the conflict as the leader of the free world, a war to control the message is raging at home. And it’s unusually fierce.
This week, some jarring events made headlines and illustrated the nature of that war: Hugely popular comedian Jon Stewart, who is Jewish–birth name, Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz–was lauded by the Muslim Public Affairs Council this week for a scathing ‘Daily Show’ segment entitled, ‘Israel Invades Gaza . . . Missile Tov!’ The Comedy Central host, noting that rockets lobbed from Hamas into Israel are not new, posed the question, ‘Why does Israel feel that they have to react so strongly right now?’ Answer the Obama inauguration. ‘I get it. . . . Israel gets their bombing in before the Jan. 20 ‘hope and change’ deadline . . . it’s like a civilian carnage Toyota-thon!’ he said to roars of approval from his audience. . . .”
“At War in Gaza, Israel Losing PR Battle in the U.S.” by Carla Marinucci; San Francisco Chronicle; 1/10/2009; pp. A1-A7.
7. Illustrating the political/economic dynamics underlying the journalistic distortion of the Middle East is the relationship between the non-profit Associated Press and its profit-making television news subsidiary APTN. In turn, the profound influence of the Arab market on the coverage provided by APTN and the influence of APTN on other broadcast outlets is a major cause of the media distortion of events in the Middle East.
“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 newsgathering 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.”
8. The program encapsulates the history of the AP and the operations of its APTN subsidiary:
“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 (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.”
9. Note the role in generating APTN’s coverage of local sources—in many cases ‘stringers’ in Arab countries who are subject to the political and ethnic prejudices that obtain in that part of 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).”
10. The program details how APTN makes its money:
“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).”
11. Of paramount importance in understanding television coverage of news in the Middle East is the decisive influence of the Arab states’ APTN subscription service. This service—specifically tailored for the virulently anti-Israeli Arab market—is profoundly influential on APTN content as a whole. And with the great influence of APTN coverage on TV coverage as a whole, this badly skews the objectivity of the coverage of the Israel and the Lebanon war.
“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.”
12. “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?”
13. There are indications that the Arabic APTN service may have been set up with this bias in mind.
“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 pp294-296 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.”
14. AP reporter Ibrahim Barzak did much of the reporting on the conflict that found itself into the Western news media. Barzak is a Palestinian resident of Gaza whose home was badly damaged in the fighting! Not exactly an objective source.
“I live alone in my office. My wife and two young children moved in with her father after our apartment was shattered. The neighborhood mosque, where I have prayed since I was a child, had its roof blown off. All the government buildings on my beat have been obliterated.
After days of Israeli shelling, the city and life I have known no longer exist. . . .”
15. As has so often been the case in recent episodes of the decades-old war between the Jews and the Arabs, coverage of the conflict has been badly skewed by embellished incidents and coverage.
” . . . The network was caught running an obviously faked video of a Gaza Palestinian supposedly being treated in the wake of an Israeli attack, supposedly recorded by a camera man who was his brother. The problem was that the “doctor” who playing the role of an emergency room physician administering CPR had not a clue what the real thing looks like. . . . Little Green Footballs exposed the fraud, so CNN pulled the video from its website without explanation. You can view the video, and keep in mind the comments of a real doctor posted on LGF: ‘I’m no military expert, but I am a doctor, and this video is bullsh-t. The chest compressions that were being performed at the beginning of this video were absolutely, positively fake. The large man in the white coat was NOT performing CPR on that child. He was just sort of tapping on the child’s sternum a little bit with his fingers. You can’t make blood flow like that. Furthermore, there’s no point in doing chest compressions if you’re not also ventilating the patient somehow. In this video, I can’t tell for sure if the patient has an endotracheal tube in place, but you can see that there is nobody bag-ventilating him (a bag is actually hanging by the head of the bed), and there is no ventilator attached to the patient. In a hospital, during a code on a ventilated patient, somebody would probably be bagging the patient during the chest compressions. And they also would have moved the bed away from the wall, so that somebody could get back there to intubate the patient and/or bag him. In short, the ‘resuscitation scene’ at the beginning is fake, and it’s a pretty lame fake at that.’ . . .”
16. The same French TV network that broadcast the fabricated footage of the “death” of Mohammed al-Durra has once again transmitted phony information.
“But that provides little comfort to Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, president and founder of The Israel Project in Washington. According to Mizrahi, France 2 committed an additional infraction of late: Staged footage.
In a report maintaining people are starving in Gaza, Mizrahi said, France 2 showed a Gaza resident in a food store saying: ‘Apparently, there is nothing, as you can see. There are no natural products for the kids. There is no milk. There is nothing here.’ . . .”
But, upon closer inspection, shelves filled with food can be seen in the reflection of a refrigerator door. . . .”
17. Further clouding any attempts at separating journalistic wheat from propagandistic chaff–by both sides–are indications that the statistics concerning Gazan civilian casualties have been greatly exaggerated. This should not be misinterpreted as saying that there wasn’t collateral damage and the deaths of innocent civilians. Rather, it should lead an intelligent observer to conclude that what we have been told is not as advertised. Corriere della Sera–Italy’s largest and most prestigious daily–reported a vastly different account of the Gazan casualty toll.
“There was a very interesting article in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera last week. It suggests that Palestinian hospital administrators and other government officials in the Gaza strip gave greatly exaggerated casualty figures to foreign reporters and aid groups during Israel’s just-ended Operation Cast Lead.
The number that has come to be seen as ‘official’ — only because of repetition — is 1,200 to 1,300. But reporter Lorenzo Cremonesi spoke to a Gazan doctor who told him, ‘The number of deaths was between 500-600…Most were young men between 17 and 23 who were recruited into the ranks of Hamas, which sent them to be slaughtered…It was strange that the non-governmental organizations, including Western ones, repeated the high number without checking, but the truth will come to light in the end.’
‘It’s like what happened in Jenin in 2002,’ the doctor said, referring to a UN investigation which contradicted media claims of a Israeli Defense Force ‘massacre’ in the West Bank and set the number of Palestinian dead at about 45. ‘At the beginning they spoke of 500 dead; afterwards [sic] it was clear there were only 54 dead, at least 45 of them fighters.’
‘It is sufficient to visit several hospitals [in the Gaza Strip] to understand that the numbers don’t add up. ‘Cremonesi wrote. He also noted that in nearly all of Gaza’s major hospitals, and especially those in major conflict zones, he found most beds empty. . . .”
18. One can only wonder how many of the accounts that found their way into the world’s media came from individuals such as a Norwegian doctor who felt that the 9/11 attacks were, on the balance, fair and justifiable.
“Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert entered the Gaza Strip several days before Israel launched its military offensive there. In the course of the operation Gilbert spoke to numerous media outlets, presented himself as “an objective physician” and repeatedly condemned the IDF’s actions in Gaza. However, it recently became known that Gilbert might have been less impartial than he claimed to be. The only Western doctor allowed into the Strip during the fighting is a member of the Norwegian socialist party Red, and a man who in the past expressed support for al-Qaeda’s September 11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. . . .”
19. It should be noted that the net result of the war and its coverage was to increase Hamas’s popularity and to increase Muslim anger. A major beneficiary of the war was the Muslim Brotherhood, parent organization of Hamas and an Islamic fascist organization.
“Inside Al Azhar Mosque, a 1,000-year-old center of religious learning, the preacher was railing on Friday against Jews. Outside were rows of riot police officers backed by water cannons and dozens of plainclothes officers, there to prevent worshipers from charging into the street to protest against the war in Gaza.
“Muslim brothers,” said the government-appointed preacher, Sheik Eid Abdel Hamid Youssef, “God has inflicted the Muslim nation with a people whom God has become angry at and whom he cursed so he made monkeys and pigs out of them. They killed prophets and messengers and sowed corruption on Earth. They are the most evil on Earth.”
As the war in Gaza burned through its 14th day, Arab governments have felt their legitimacy challenged with an uncommon virulence. With each passing day, and each Palestinian death, the popularity of Hamas and other radical movements has ratcheted higher on the Arab street, while the standing of Arab leaders has suffered.. . .
‘The pressure is mounting on Egypt,’ said Abdel Raouf el-Reedy, a former Egyptian ambassador to the United States. ‘How come you keep the Israeli ambassador here? How come you keep the Egyptian ambassador in Israel? How come you still export gas to Israel in spite of a court order to stop? The system is on the defensive. Public opinion is more clearly on the side of Hamas.’
The mood on the streets of Cairo feels somber, dark, dejected. There is a heavy security presence. Armed riot police officers are massed outside of professional organizations, like the Doctor’s Syndicate, that are often run by members aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, the officially outlawed but tolerated Islamic movement. Massive troop carriers clog small side streets.
Over three days of interviews here, people seemed deflated about the public criticism their country had received, let down by the failure of their own government to help the Palestinians and sickened by the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, not only combatants but many women and children as well. Over and over, Egyptians said they felt the only ones they could trust were the Islamists — not their government.
‘The Muslim Brotherhood’s work gives them credibility,’ said Heba Omar, 27, who collected about $4,000 from her neighbors to donate to a charity controlled by brotherhood members. ‘They do what they can do at times of crisis.’ . . .”
20. In the past, For The Record compared the experience of covering the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to covering the O.J. Simpson case. People are stridently, viciously polarized on both issues and fundamentally misinformed—misinformed BECAUSE THE MEDIA UPON WHICH THEY DEPEND FOR THEIR INFORMATION ARE NOT PROPERLY INFORMING THEM. Although the public is not, for the most part, aware of it, there was a mountain of exculpatory evidence in the O.J. Simpson case, as well as enough evidence to indict, and perhaps convict, Mark Fuhrman, the detective who conducted the illegal search of O.J.’s property. In the next paragraph, we will examine some of that evidence. Note that this is from a fireside chat. It is an informal talk. Mr. Emory did not source his discussion of the OJ case. For the overwhelming majority of the information, use the search function to locate old programs about the case. They are all available on the archive page maintained by WFMU.
21. In FTR #571, we enumerated a number of essential facts about the O.J. Simpson case that the media did not (for the most part) communicate. The media did not tell people: that a report was submitted to prosecutor Marcia Clark a week or so after the killings indicating that Mark Fuhrman had a sexual interest in Nicole Brown Simpson and may well have had an affair with her; that Mark Fuhrman was the head of a white supremacist group within the Los Angeles Police Department called WASP (“White Anglo-Saxon Policemen”); that O.J. and Nicole Simpson were receiving death threats from white supremacist groups (including some affiliated with the Los Angeles Police Department); that Judge Lance Ito’s wife was the highest ranking female member of the LAPD; that Ito’s wife had been Fuhrman’s watch commander and had to discipline Fuhrman when he wrote “KKK” on the Martin Luther King Holiday on the station house calendar; that Ito’s wife later claimed she had no recollection of Fuhrman and that, therefore, Judge Ito had no conflict of interest; that Fuhrman lied on the stand during the pre-trial hearings about where he was and what he was doing on the night of the killings; that Nicole wasn’t living in fear of O.J.—she had a pizza party at O.J.’s a few weeks before the killings; that all of the principles in the case had links to “organized vice’; that Nicole appears to have been working as a call girl for Heidi Fleiss’s ring (the call girl operation of “the Hollywood Madam”); that Ron Goldman was openly gay and had no passionate interest in Nicole; that Ron Goldman may well have been working as a gay prostitute and that he was receiving death threats from his jealous gay lover; that Michael Nigg—a defense witness—was murdered shortly before he was to testify; that Casimir “Butch Casey” Sucharski—a reputed organized crime associate of O.J.’s from his playing days was murdered shortly after being written about in the Buffalo News; that Cowlings and Robert Kardashian (O.J.’s friend and attorney) were under investigation by a grand jury for possible involvement in the largest sports-betting ring in California; that Cowlings was a driver and bodyguard for Joey Ippolito, a major Southern California organized crime figure; that Nicole testified in her divorce testimony that the New Year’s eve incident was the only time O.J. had been violent with her; that Duane Garrett—a Bay Area AM radio talk show host—reported that O.J. had approached by Edward J. DeBartolo, Jr. (the owner of the San Francisco 49’ers) and offered millions of dollars to become the first black NFL franchise owner; that O.J. (according to Garrett) turned the offer down because of the alleged organized crime connections of DeBartolo; that Garrett began receiving death threats shortly after he made the report; that roughly a year after making the report, Garrett went off the Golden Gate Bridge (an alleged suicide); that the Mezzaluna restaurant (at which Ron Goldman worked and which was managed by Nicole’s boy friend) was well known to have been an organized crime front; that Ron Goldman’s father is alleged in a book published in Sweden to be a money-launderer for organized crime; that Denise Brown (Nicole’s sister) was dating Tony “the Animal” Fiatto (a former mob enforcer turned Federal informant); that there is abundant, irrefutable evidence that the LAPD falsified evidence to frame O.J.; that the Los Angeles County grand jury would not indict O.J.; that witnesses who saw the real killers were intimidated into silence; that knowledgeable inside sources allege that the killing of Ron and Nicole was videotaped—the ultimate snuff flick.
22. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the O.J. case was the perversion of the judicial process and the establishment of legal precedents that fundamentally undermine centuries of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. The California legislature passed a special law, virtually in secret, which allowed Nicole’s “diary” to be introduced as evidence. The volume was not, however, a diary but a thought journal that was maintained for her therapist. It included her dreams and fantasies. With that ruling, California law (and potentially U.S. law) reverted to the Salem Witch Trials. In the civil case, one of the principal factors deciding the case for the plaintiffs was the introduction of some crudely forged pictures of O.J. wearing “Bruno Magli shoes.” One set of the forged pictures showed O.J. wearing what purport to be “gray” Bruno Magli shoes. Bruno Magli has never made a gray shoe! This evidentiary travesty was allowed to stand because O.J.’s counsel was prevented from examining the evidence against his client! Mr. Emory hasn’t done much programming about the breach of civil liberties implemented by some of the legal maneuvering around the “war on terror.” The damage occurred a long time ago.
23. Like the O.J. Simpson case, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fundamentally misunderstood, due in large measure to deliberately distorted research, reporting and historical archiving. Most people viewing the Arab/Israeli conflict do not understand that: the Palestinian cause and its leaders are affiliated with genocide and fascism throughout its history; that the genesis of the Nazi/Palestinian axis derives from the Ottoman Empire’s imperial dynamic of supporting the Husseini clan against the Hasemite and Nashashibi clans; that Haj Amin al-Husseini (the first leader of the Palestinian national movement) began his professional life as an officer in the Turkish army during World War I (which was committing genocide against the Christian Armenians and perpetrating a brutal, atrocity-ridden counter-insurgency campaign against Arab insurgents); that the British adopted the same pro-Husseini imperial dynamic as the Turks when they assumed stewardship of that part of the Ottoman Empire; that Husseini began perpetrating pogroms against Jews living in Palestine decades before the state of Israel came into being; that Husseini later became an SS officer, recruited three Balkan Muslim Waffen SS divisions for the Third Reich and also worked for Imperial Japan; that the League of Nations (and the British) endorsed a 23/77 percent division of Palestine between, respectively Jews and Arabs; that the British (in the run-up to the Second World War and in an attempt to curry favor with the Arabs) first reduced, and then negated, their commitment to the Balfour Declaration granting the Jews a Middle Eastern homeland; that the 1948 U.N. resolution establishing the state of Israel also called for the establishment of a Palestinian state (which neither the Arabs nor the Palestinians made any attempt to establish); that the Saudis are the primary financier of the Palestinian cause; that the Saudis (despite being an original member of the United Nations) have never acknowledged the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the legal and philosophical foundation of the United Nations; that Saudi Arabia issued a competing “Universal Declaration of Muslim Rights” which (in effect) said that only Muslims had rights; that the majority of Palestinians left their homes at the request of their leaders so that the Jews could be wiped out when the Arab armies were provided with a clear field of fire; that (under the statutes of international law) Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is not illegal—no sovereign state claims the territory as its own (the Palestinians are not, and never have been, a sovereign state); that the U.N. resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank are recommendation (not enforcement) resolutions and, as such, are fundamentally different from enforcement resolutions; that, in the summer of 1967, Israel offered to withdraw from all of the territories occupied during the Six Day War if the Arabs would recognize their existence (the Arabs refused and vowed to exterminate them); that the 2000 peace resolution rejected by Yasser Arafat called for the establishment of a common market to be shared by Israel and the Palestinians; that (prior to Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip) a group of wealthy American Jews contributed millions of dollars to buy some hydroponic vegetable growing facilities and warehouses to give to the Palestinians as a good-will gesture; that those facilities had generated between 10 and 20 percent of Israel’s agriculture exports; that those hydroponics facilities would have provided the Palestinians with 24,000 good jobs; that the Palestinians destroyed those facilities almost immediately upon re-occupying the Gaza Strip; that (following Israel’s war of independence in 1948) the Arab nations ethnically cleansed most of their own Jewish populations; that the number of Jews so cleansed (about 900,000 by best estimates) exceeds the original number of Palestinians cleansed by the Israelis (about 660,000 according to the best available statistics); that most of the ethnically cleansed Middle Eastern Jews settled in Israel where (known as “the Mizrahi”) they constitute the foundation of the Israeli political and electoral right-wing, that gay members of the IDF (the Israel Defense Force) receive full spousal benefits for their domestic partners.
24. The goal of the distorted coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to bring about a mindset like that presented in Serpent’s Walk. In Serpent’s Walk, a Nazi propaganda tract and teaching tool, like The Turner Diaries, the Nazi Fuehrer (Alan Lessing) inveighs against the Jews. (This takes place after the Underground Reich has infiltrated the US Army, a devastating bio/terror attack involving genetically-engineered micro-organisms has wiped out much of the US population, martial law is declared, Israel gets wiped out by an Underground Reich “preemptive strike”, and the Underground Reich takes over the world.) The premise of the tract is that the US and the world are being manipulated by a “Jewish conspiracy”-a theme one hears with increasing frequency these days from the so-called progressive sector, as well as overtly fascist elements.
“‘A preemptive, surgical first strike, just like the Izzies pulled on the Arabs a few times.’ He picked up a sheaf of documents. ‘We keep this stuff, right? It’s evidence of their intentions. I’ll give it to Liese’s publicity people right away, and we’ll have it on Home-Net before nightfall. I think we can promise you support.’”
(Serpent’s Walk by ‘Randolph D. Calverhall;’ Copyright 1991 [SC]; National Vanguard Books; 0-937944-05-X; pp. 432-433.)
25. “‘They deserved it!’ Kenow growled. ‘We didn’t do nothin’ to ‘em.’” (Ibid.; p. 433.)
26. “‘Even if you did, I doubt if our ethnos group’ll make more than token objections. The world’s had it. Anybody as unpopular as the Jews have always been . . . Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Spain, every country in Europe during the Middle Ages, Russia, America, the Third Reich . . . must be doing something wrong! We’d have preferred peaceful . . . and separate . . . and distant . . . co-existence, but they never got the message. Now we don’t care anymore.’” (Idem.)
27. “‘It’s too bad . . .’ Wrench began.” (Idem.)
28. “’Don’t waste your pity!’ Lessing snapped. ‘They wouldn’t waste any on you. Sure, it’s sad that innocent people have to suffer, but it can’t be helped. That’s reality! That’s Nature! You can’t save the dodo, the condors, and the other losers in the battle for survival. Species-extinction happens over and over, like rain in the summer-time. Forget ethics and morality and ‘do-unto-others.’ The Izzies said ‘never again!’ about the ‘Holocaust,’ but then they turned around and did to the Palestinians everything they claimed the Germans had done to them! They called it ‘self-defense’: war under the pretext of peace, oppression in the name of justice and stability! The Arabs were weak and went under, but we’re a different story. We’re going to make it, no matter who gets in our way.’” (Idem.)
29. “‘I hear Bill Goddard again,’ Wrench murmured.” (Idem.)
30. “‘No, you hear me, Alan Lessing! There was a time when I’d have waffled and gone for ‘turn the other cheek,’ but not anymore! Now you hear me, and you hear our Party, our ethnos, our majority . . . our First Fuhrer! You hear the past, you hear the present, and you hear the future! We are the future!’” (Idem.)
31. “‘No, you hear me, Alan Lessing! There was a time when I’d have waffled and gone for ‘turn the other cheek,’ but not anymore! Now you hear me, and you hear our Party, our ethnos, our majority . . . our First Fuhrer! You hear the past, you hear the present, and you hear the future! We are the future!’” (Idem.)