Showing posts with label Hoaxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hoaxes. Show all posts

May 22, 2008

Al-Dura Trial: Karsenty Wins in Paris

The truth emerges about Palestinianism, Palestiniasts, Pallywood and the al-Dura hoax. Via HonestReporting. com:

The iconic images of Mohammad al-Dura's alleged death in Gaza inflamed Palestinian sentiment and provoked terrible bloodshed. Despite the evidence that Israel was not responsible for firing the bullets that hit al-Dura, and doubts as to the credibility of the footage taken from the scene, this libel has continued to prevail.

HonestReporting has brought you the news directly from the trial of Philippe Karsenty, who accused France 2 and its reporter Charles Enderlin of knowingly broadcasting doctored footage of the al-Dura incident.

To recall, France 2 successfully sued Karsenty who then appealed against the verdict. At the appeal trial, some of the raw footage taken during that fateful day in Gaza was aired to a packed courtroom that witnessed numerous examples of "Pallywood" staging of events. France 2, however, only made available some 18 out of 27 minutes of footage that apparently exists.

Evidently, these scenes and the unreliability of France 2's cameraman Talal Abu Rahma has convinced the French appeals judge. Philippe Karsenty has won the appeal against his libel conviction.

Media commentator Tom Gross, who has previously reviewed (see our exclusive video) the al-Dura affair for HonestReporting, said in response to the verdict:

Today's ruling shows there are serious doubts about France 2's version of events, and that the entire world press - including the American TV networks - were irresponsible in being so quick to take at face value the claims of a local Palestinian cameraman working for France 2, a cameraman who has admitted his partisanship.

Karsenty said in a statement released after his victory:

The al-Dura lie is an assault on our ability to think, to criticize, to evaluate, and finally to reject information - especially the right to reject information on which we base our most cherished assumptions. One of Europe's most cherished assumptions is that Israel is a vicious Nazi-like entity that deliberately murders Palestinian Arab children. Moreover, polls conducted in Europe have identified Israel as the greatest threat to world peace, greater than Iran and North Korea, Pakistan and Syria. The al-Dura hoax is one of the pillars on which these assumptions rely.

Now it is time for France 2 to acknowledge that it created and is continuing to perpetuate the worst anti-Semitic libel of our era.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

At the time of writing, the full judgment had not been released to the media. However, Take A Pen's Endre Mozes was in the courtroom delivering firsthand accounts of proceedings to HonestReporting. Mozes spoke with some of the lawyers involved who had seen a copy of the judgment prior to its forthcoming release.
Amongst his observations and the comments from these lawyers was the court's acceptance of the argument that protagonists operating in non-democratic regimes such as the Palestinian areas are inherently less reliable and should be carefully scrutinized as should have been the case with Talal Abu Rahma.

Essentially, the court decided the level of doubt associated with the al-Dura footage warrants deep analysis. It is perfectly legitimate to question it, not libelous.

Philippe Karsenty's efforts have opened up France 2 to scrutiny and serves as an example of how the media should be held accountable for their material and the consequences of their reporting. France 2's al-Dura footage has been shown in court to be unreliable and possibly fake. Along with a number of investigations concluding that Israel was not responsible for the bullets that allegedly killed the boy, the icon that is al-Dura - the edifice upon which so much hostility has been directed at Israel, aided and abetted by a willing media - comes toppling down.

WHERE IS THE COVERAGE?

So far, despite access to Reuters and Associated Press wire reports, only Jewish and Israeli media have published the trial verdict. The mainstream media has regrettably remained silent. Is the same media that did so much to propagate the al-Dura libel without verifying the facts now too embarrassed to admit that they may have erred?

If your local media outlet has not covered this story, write to it and ask why not. While Philippe Karsenty has had his day in court, the State of Israel and all of those victims of the terror and violence fueled by images of al-Dura deserve nothing less.

Some of our own subscribers were not even in their teens in 2000 when the al-Dura case occurred and may not even remember it. Some of those who do remember have questioned why we should continue to pursue this case several years later.

We believe that, irrespective of how long it may take, the truth will emerge. Accountability and justice do not dissipate over time. HonestReporting will continue to hold the media to account and to revisit those cases where an injustice has been done.

COMING SOON - THE BIG LIES

HonestReporting will be bringing you the court's full judgment as part of a brand new interactive resource - The Big Lies. Using multimedia resources, including audio and video footage, al-Dura is but one of a number of case studies where untrue accusations have been reported as facts. This exciting resource will enable you to examine the lies, how the media presented them, and the real facts, as well as further resources to counter the next "Big Lie".

March 03, 2008

French Ballistics Expert in al-Dura Libel Case: Gaza Child Wasn't Killed by Israeli Gunfire

What we already knew. More compelling evidence on the Mohammed al-Dura hoax. From French Ballistics Expert in al-Dura Libel Case: Gaza Child Wasn't Killed by Israeli Gunfire:
A report presented to a French court last week by independent ballistics expert Jean-Claude Schlinger maintains that the death of Mohammed al-Dura, a Palestinian child shot in Gaza on the first day of the intifada in September 2000, could not have been the result of Israeli gunfire, corroborating claims that the footage shown on France 2 television was doctored. Schlinger wrote, "If Jamal [the boy's father] and Mohammed al-Dura were indeed struck by shots, then they could not have come from the Israeli position, from a technical point of view, but only from the direction of the Palestinian position." Schlinger has served as an adviser on ballistic and forensic evidence in French courts for 20 years.

December 23, 2007

Celebrating a kleptocracy

Fatah is planning to mark its 43rd anniversary this year with a new poster that presents all of Israel as palestine. Designed specifically for the occasion by Abdel Mun'em Ibrahim, the poster features a map of Israel that is entirely draped with a Palestinian keffiyeh scarf.

However, if anyone knew the fraud and hoax of the entity calling itself 'palestine', they would look at palestine as if it were entirely draped in a shroud, because palestine is dead; like an aborted fetus, it was never born, it never lived, it doesn't exist, and anything that anyone proclaims that it does exist, is akin to a seminal emission drip from the chancre it oozed out of, and nothing more.

December 21, 2007

Video: Virgins of Paradise Music Video Returns to PA TV

It was proven that the Mohamad al-Dura tape was a hoax, so the Muslim barbarians have to come up with a new angle. Hence, the brainwashing begins anew. From Virgins of Paradise Music Video Returns to PA TV:
A music video depicting a martyr for Allah being greeted in Paradise by the Dark Eyed Maidens (Virgins) has returned to PA television. The clip portrays a woman being shot in the back by Israeli soldiers, who is immediately transported to Paradise where she joins other maidens wearing identical long white gowns, all joyously dancing. The next scenes depict her male friend being shot by Israeli soldiers and transported to heaven, where all the "Maidens" greet him. It was broadcast several times a day during the PA terror war (2000-2005).

December 19, 2007

Wounds of Mohamed al Dura's Father Date Back to 1992, Surgeon Reveals

Excerpted from Pajama Media:
Jamal al Dura, who claims that Israelis fired at him and his son in 2000, was in fact injured by axe blade and not bullets in1992, according to an Israeli surgeon who performed reconstructive surgery on the wounds two years later. PJM’s Nidra Poller reports on the latest startling development in the mother of all fauxtography cases:

The wounds purportedly sustained on September 30 2000 by Jamal al Dura “target of gunfire from the Israeli positions”—in the words of France 2 bureau chief Charles Enderlin—were in fact incurred in 1992. Jamal, identified as the father of Mohamed al Dura, is one of the two living witnesses to the incident that triggered the “Al Aqsa Intifada.” The al Dura news report has been the subject of controversy for seven years.

Philippe Karsenty, who is appealing his 2006 defamation conviction—for declaring on his Media-Ratings site that the al Dura news report was a blatant fake—obtained medical records proving that Jamal’s wounds were treated by an Israeli surgeonin 1994. Now the surgeon, Yehuda David, has confirmed this information on a December 12 newscast on Israel’s Arutz 10 TV.

Jean Tsadik of Metula News Agency resumed the Hebrew-language newscast for French-speaking readers. According to the Metula release, Jamal al Dura declared on medical records in 1992 that Palestinian militia had attacked him with axes.

Doctors at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital* were able to save his life buthe lost the use of his right hand because they could not repaira ruptured tendon in the forearm.

Now we learn that Jamal used the arm restored by Israeli surgeons to act out the blood libel that provoked the murderous rage that killed countless Israeli civilians, including courageous doctors who had treated Palestinians with the same generosity he experienced.

On November 14th lying scumbag Charles Enderlin stood before a French court and walked the judges through 18 minutes of raw footage filmed by Talal Abu Rahmah, including the 59-second al Dura shots. He had an explanation for every incongruity. When will he realize that he is walking down a gangplank?

* Images of a dead child “identified” as Mohamed al Dura but brought in several hours before the alleged shooting occurred, were shot at Shifa Hospital.
——
Pajamas Media has an AL DURA CHONOLOGY to give background on the hoax.

October 03, 2007

Starring on CNN

A must read. Christiane Amanpour, may your hand wither, your tongue split, and may you hemorrhage from your nose so that you will never again spread your filthy lies falsely equating Islam with a moral relativity equal to Judaism or Christianity. From Starring on CNN:

Did you see me? I was on CNN. My allotted portion amounted to 1.5 seconds. And I shared it with three others while the CNN narrator distorted the context of what we were actually doing. Cobbling together two hours of disjointed footage and commentary, CNN's series "God's Warriors" ostensibly exposed many of us - in Israel and the U.S. - as radical Jewish warriors: No different or any less dangerous than those among the world's 1 billion Muslims who are radical in their way too. It was a scam, a hoax, a manipulation I tell you.

The CNN field producer had learned of the Chicago Jewish Community Relations Council through her mother, a non-Jewish resident of a Chicago suburb who admired our leading role in advocating an end to the Darfur genocide. It was precisely this type of activity, the noble pursuit of justice by grassroots people motivated by religious impulses and acting through religious institutions that the producer claimed the network and its star correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, wanted to explore. She insisted that CNN's aim was not to focus on the radical fringes among the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

The writer is executive director of the Chicago Jewish Community Relations Council. (Jerusalem Post)

October 01, 2007

Israeli Government Officially Confirms Al-Dura Footage was Staged Blood Libel Against IDF

We all knew it. And the Jew-hating Muslim thugs knew it too. Now the mask is off. From Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center:
In response to a warning letter sent by Shurat HaDin to the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO) more than 9 months ago, GPO Director Danny Seaman has written a formal acknowledgment that FRANCE 2 Television staged the infamous news footage depicting a Palestinian child being shot to death by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in September 2000. This is the first time in the seven years since the footage broadcast that the Prime Minister's Office has confirmed that a journalistic fraud had been perpetrated against the IDF by government owned FRANCE 2 television.

Shurat HaDin had written Seaman contending that mounting evidence proved that cameramen and news editors from FRANCE 2 had deliberately staged and then misleadingly edited the footage aired by the French government television on in September 2000. The emotional footage, repeatedly broadcast around the world on CNN and other cable stations, ignited anti-Israeli violence in the Palestinian Authority and Israeli Arab communities and spurred international condemnation of the IDF. The Palestinian youth Muhammad al-Dura, allegedly seen being killed in the video footage, became the poster child in the Arab world for the current intifada violence and fueled hundreds of terror attacks against Israeli citizens and Jewish communities worldwide. Thousands of Jews and Arabs have been killed in the ensuing violence following the broadcast.

The Shurat HaDin letter demanded that, in light of the fraudulent broadcast and the grievous harm that it unleashed against Israel as well as the massive numbers of victims attributable to the fake footage, Seaman must strip FRANCE 2 of its press credentials.

Although Seaman stopped short of agreeing to remove FRANCE 2's accreditations his response letter to Shurat HaDin confirms that the Prime Minister's Office firmly believes that the footage was deliberately staged to misrepresent that the IDF killed al-Dura when in fact a forensic investigation has concluded that Israel could not possibly have been responsible. As Seaman writes:

"Without any deep and serious investigation, the global media convicted the State of Israel in the murder of a little boy, and his image remained tattooed and engraved in the collective Arab memory as a symbol for the cruelty of the Zionist nation. These allegations started a long road that leaded to exposing the truth and basing the fact that Talal Abu Rahma, the network’s Palestinian cameraman, engaged in the systematic staging of action scenes . . . This libel incited the Arab world and caused many victims in and outside of Israel."
Seaman's letter then states that despite this confirmed journalistic libel the GPO will not seek to have FRANCE 2's credentials revoked.

It is the intention now of Shurat HaDin to file a petition in the High Court of Justice against the GPO and FRANCE 2 compelling the government to remove FRANCE 2 credentials and prohibit them from manufacturing further anti-Israel propaganda pieces.

According to Shurat HaDin Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: "This modern-day blood libel directly resulted in hundreds of Jewish and Arab deaths and ignited a still-flaming torch of international hatred, only for the sake of raising FRANCE 2's ratings. This was perhaps the greatest journalistic hoax perpetrated in the last hundred years. We demand that those who are responsible for this crime will bare the consequences of their actions. The State of Israel cannot simply allow FRANCE 2 to remain in this country."

Moreover, activist Philippe Karsenty has led a long battle inside of Frcnce against FRANCE 2 seeking to determine whether the Al-Dura footage had been staged. Last week in an historic victory for Philippe Karsenty, a French Court hearing an appeal of his case centering on the Al-Dura allegations ordered that all of the raw video footage shot by the camera crew be released to determine if a deliberate news hoax had been perpetrated.

Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center is a long overdue Jewish legal rights institute based in Israel. Staffed by some of the country’s leading activist attorneys, we are dedicated to providing legal representation and resources for the numerous courtroom struggles, which are being waged in the Israeli, American and European courts on behalf of the Jewish State. We serve as a central clearinghouse and litigation base for the multifarious legal battles that have been thrust upon Israel’s citizens during these dark days.

Contact Us: info@israellawcenter.org
Watch the video below and see for yourself.

September 23, 2007

French Judge Orders Court Screening of Al-Dura Video Footage

From French Judge Orders Court Screening of Al-Dura Video Footage:
An appeals court judge in Paris ordered France 2 TV to show the court 25 minutes of raw video footage shot on Sept. 30, 2000, in Gaza in which the Palestinian boy Mohammed al-Dura apparently was shot and killed in an exchange of gunfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants. Al-Dura's shooting death became an icon for Palestinian suffering, but the Israeli army concluded after an investigation that the boy could not possibly have been hit by Israeli bullets. When Philippe Karsenty, director of the media watchdog group Media-Ratings, called France 2's exclusive video of the incident "a hoax," he was found guilty of slander. He appealed the decision, and on Wednesday the appeals judge ordered that the video be released. Several French and U.S. journalists who have seen the raw footage have indicated the shooting might have been staged by Palestinians.

September 16, 2007

Nous accusons!

Excerpted from Melanie Phillips:
Tomorrow, [Update: legal argument took place on September 12 while the full hearing is now scheduled to start on September 19, 2007. ] an appeal starts in Paris in a case which encapsulates all that is most rotten and murderous about the media war against Israel and its truly monstrous consequences. At the beginning of the second intifada, an event occurred which more than any other was to incite mass hysteria against Israel, lead directly to the terrorist murder of Jews and whip up demonstrations and incitement against Israel and the west throughout the Arab and Muslim world. On September 30, 2000 viewers around the world watched a short news clip screened by the TV station France 2 which appeared to show the killing by the Israel Defence Force of a Palestinian boy, Muhammad al-Dura, at Netzarim junction in Gaza. The boy was shown crouching with his father behind a barrel next to a concrete wall in an apparently vain attempt to shelter from the gun-battle between Israel and the Palestinians that was raging around them. In his commentary on the incident France 2's Israel correspondent, Charles Enderlin, declared that the IDF had killed the boy.

This footage become the iconic image of the intifada and the Palestinian 'struggle' against Israel. It served to incite terrorist violence and atrocities as well as inflaming hatred of Israel around the world. It was used in Palestinian educational materials to incite other children to turn themselves into human bombs. It was used repeatedly in al Qaeda's videotape of the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002. Itwas used to whip Iraqi Republican Guards into a frenzy before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. And most stomach-churning of all, it was invoked by the Palestinian mob in Ramallah that lynched IDF reservists YosefAvrahami and Vadim Novesche, who had taken a wrong turning, two weeks after the alleged al Durah killing.

The consequences of their fatal error are well known: they were tortured and beaten to death in the Palestinian Authority police station, and their lifeless bodies thrown out of the station's second story window to a throngof men howling, Allahu Akbar -God is great! They commenced to dismember and disembowel the soldiers' corpses, and then passed the entrails on a platter to a hysterical mob numbering in the thousands who rejoiced as they literally chewed and swallowed the remains of their hated Jews. What is lesser known is that while eating the flesh and blood of their victims, in satisfaction and triumph, the good citizens of Ramallah chanted, not only, Allahu-Akbar- but the name of Mohamed al Durah!But it quickly became apparent that the IDF could not have killed al Durah. Initially, the Israeli government had taken responsibility for his death, but it later concluded that the whole thing was a fraud because it wasphysically impossible for the IDF to have shot at the al Duras from their position that day at the Netzarim junction. Several other independent commentators came to the same conclusion, including extensive investigations by the French-language Israeli news agency MENA, a German television documentary film by Esther Schapira called Three Bullets and a Dead Child: Who Shot Muhammad al-Dura? and the Atlantic Monthly; while Richard Landes, a Boston University historian, who has claimed on his blog, Augean Stables, his website, The Second Draft, and in three films-Pallywood, The Birth of an Icon, and Icon of Hatred-that the al Dura 'killing' was staged.

On November 24, 2004, Philippe Karsenty, founder of the French online media watchdog, Media Ratings, sent out an email to his subscribers in which he accused the France 2 television network of staging the al Durah 'killing'. He called for the resignation of both Charles Enderlin and France 2's News Director, Arlette Chabot, for their role in promulgating the alleged hoax. France 2 and Enderlin sued Karsenty for defamation, and won. Tomorrow sees the opening of Karsenty's appeal. The behaviour to date of both the French judges and France 2 has been simply outrageous.

The footage in question was filmed by a Palestinian cameraman, Talal abu Rahma. France 2 is holding 27 minutes of raw footage of his film which it refuses to release. Independent investigators have repeatedly asked it to do so. It refuses point blank. Why? Since transmitted parts of this footage, why does it refuse to release the rest of it? The most likely reason is that the unscreened footage proves that the 'killing' was indeed nothing of the kind.
Click here to read the full article.

June 26, 2007

Iran incursion into Iraq, why is the media silent?

An excellent article written by Debbie of The Right Truth, featured on Dhimmitude News Network. A must-read:

I think it’s worth noting that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announce they are going to Iran on the same day that Iranians invade Iraq. Sounds just a little too convenient for me. I reported yesterday that the British “have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border.”
The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources. (source)
Elements of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran are now openly operating in Southern Iraq. This marks a major change … For the first time openly violating the international border in numbers … And the media is silent. Why? I really want to know. Do they not believe the British? Why is this so hard to believe? We have heard for months or longer from our own military generals in Iraq, that Iranian military and weapons have been found in Iraq. Our own military have captured high-ranking Iranian military agents in Iraq. So why the silence?

Hot Air is suggesting that the story of Iranians crossing the Iraqi border may be a hoax. Trust me, this information is TRUE. Even LGF is questioning the validity of the story.

Smooth Stone reminds us of this Times Online report:
A British Royal Navy helicopter that crashed in flames in Basra last year, killing all five on board, was shot down by a sophisticated surface-to-air missile supplied to Iraqi militants by Iran, according to U.S. officials. Three days before the attack, State Department officials interviewed an Iraqi linked to the Mahdi Army who told them Iran had supplied the militia with the Russian surface-to-air missile.
Atlas Shrugs reports, “Moreover, this may be coordinated with actions by Venezuela and Russia Breibart hat tip CSHW.”

Ace of Spades, “That famous “moral clarity” of the Bush Administration seems to have been misplaced at some point.”

Many believe we shouldn’t make Iran out to be the bad guy, that they are not really a threat to us. Here

Stolen Muslim land is supposedly what drives the hatred of Indonesia-based extremist network Jemaah Islamiah and the rest of the Muslim world. I don’t buy it.
The Merry Widow has Biblical background on the Middle East situation.

Everything is Israel or America’s fault. Here, and here, here, here, partially herel, surprisingly here, here.

On the latest Sharm el-Sheikh meeting, TIME says:
… Arab-Israeli summit is that the Arabs, at least, aren’t feeling that they got what they wanted or needed from Israel. [snip]Olmert did in fact announce that Israel would begin releasing a good portion of the $700 million in withheld tax revenues that Abbas insists Israel owes the Palestinian Authority. Olmert also said he’d seek cabinet approval for the release of 250 Palestinian prisoners who don’t have Jewish blood on their hands. That is an important concession, given that Olmert previously suggested that Israel would not free Palestinians while Hamas continues to hold corporal Gilad Shalit.
More on Sharm cl-Sheikh:
Bluntly put, Israel and the U.S. on the one hand, and the Arab regimes and Fatah on the other, want very different outcomes in the Palestinian territories, and bringing them together in this way only highlights those differences. (Rootless Cosmopolitan)
Is this what you want for your daughter’s future? If we don’t win this war and take the Islamic jihadists seriously, it could be:
If you’re a single female, you’re public property., Dr. Zakir Naik’s Lessons In Logic, at Sugiero.
But the Democrats are more concerned with putting a surcharge on American people who have been successful. (John’s Conservative Thoughts and Washington Post)

We have modern day (Islamic) pirates, hijacking cargo ships. The MV Danica White and its five Danish crew members were “hijacked by Somali pirates earlier this month” and have “run out of food and fresh water at sea, a Kenyan maritime official said today.” (The Australian) Gates of Vienna:
Now Reuters puts forth what has become the standard MSM refrain about Somalia since Ethiopia and the United States collaborated to push out the Islamists last winter:

Such attacks have increased since a Somali Islamist movement that brought a semblance of order for six months was ousted in January.

Relations between the United States and Serbia are worsening because of U.S. support for the independence of Kosovo.

President Hugo Chavez urged Venezuelan soldiers on Sunday to prepare for a guerrilla-style war against the United States. (Chron.com)

Powerline shares: “The Hill reports on the growing number of Congressional Democrats who are willing to say out loud that they want to abandon Afghanistan to the terrorists.”

Don’t forget about North Korea:

North Korea has finally received the $25 million frozen in Macao’s Banco Delta Asia that it “demanded” prior to its following through on the February 13th agreement to dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear plant. (DeMediacratic Nation)
Back to the United States and the media. Heaven forbid that another white girl go missing, or another pregnant woman be found dead, or Paris Hilton get another DWI, because it seems THAT is all the media is interested in. Well, when they aren’t talking about VP Dick Cheney, or Bush-Hitler.

Discuss this article at Right Truth.

Written by Debbie Hamilton - Visit Website

June 05, 2007

How the Six-Day War Reshaped the Mideast

From How the Six-Day War Reshaped the Mideast:

The great irony of the Six-Day War of 1967 was that it began with a hoax - a piece of faulty Soviet intelligence given to the Egyptians. On May 13, the Soviet ambassador to Cairo informed the Egyptians that Israel was massing "10 to 12 brigades" on the Syrian border in preparation for a big push against the radical regime in Damascus. In response to that Soviet report, Nasser mobilized his troops on May 14 and dispatched them into the Sinai. The casus belli would come on May 22, when Nasser announced the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping. Euphoria gripped the Arab world; Nasser hadn't fired a shot, but great gains had come his way. On May 30, King Hussein of Jordan rushed to Cairo to place his army under Egyptian command.

At the remove of four decades, we should not overdo the importance of that Soviet report about the phantom Israeli brigades. At the heart of the war lay the willful Arab refusal to accept Israel's legitimacy and statehood. Israel's victory in 1967 delivered a message: that the state that had fought its way into the world in 1948 is there to stay.

Contributing Editor Fouad Ajami is Majid Khadduri professor of Middle East studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and author, most recently, of The Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq.

April 12, 2007

Al Sharpton is a racist and a Jew basher

A must-read article in full from The Nine Lives of Al Sharpton. What does this have to do with Israel? Al Sharpton goes out of his way with his hatred for Jews. Here's the evidence:

-----------------------------------------------

By now everyone knows about the recent idiotic remarks that longtime broadcaster Don Imus made last week about some black members of the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, to whom he referred as “nappy-headed hos.” Imus’ words require no comment; their stupidity is clear to all.

What is not at all clear, however, is why Al Sharpton has become Imus’ de facto confessor in this case. On Monday, the shock jock contritely appeared on Sharpton’s radio program and apologized for his stupid statements. Sharpton, for his part, slid into his customary moral preening routine and denounced Imus’ comments of last week as “racist” and “abominable,” adding that the broadcaster “should be fired” for what he had said. “I accept his apology,” Sharpton later elaborated, “just as I want his bosses to accept his resignation.” Moreover, Sharpton vowed to picket Imus’ New York radio home, WFAN-AM, unless the broadcaster was fired within a week for having “use[d] the airwaves for sexist and racist remarks.”

When one considers the multitude of hurtful, malicious, deceitful things Al Sharpton himself has said and done over the years—chiefly for the purpose of justifying his own existence as a proverbial shepherd dutifully shielding black Americans from the white racist wolves that supposedly surround them all times—it is beyond incredible not only that he hosts his own radio program, but that anyone on earth should take seriously anything he has to say.

Sharpton’s career as a public liar and racial arsonist began in earnest two decades ago when he injected himself into the case of 16-year-old Tawana Brawley, who in November 1987 claimed that she had been repeatedly raped and sodomized for four days by six white kidnappers, at least one of whom was wearing a police badge. She further alleged that her assailants had chopped off some of her hair, forced her to perform oral sex on them, urinated into her mouth, smeared her clothing with feces, and covered her chest with racial slurs before finally depositing her in a wooded area of Wappingers Falls, a town in Dutchess County, New York. It was among the most disturbing tales in living memory.

Al Sharpton quickly assumed the role of special adviser to Miss Brawley and thereafter worked closely with the girl’s attorneys, C. Vernon Mason (who, later in his career, would be convicted of 66 counts of professional misconduct and disbarred from the legal profession) and Alton Maddox (who has publicly expressed his profound hatred for white people). Lamenting that their client had fallen prey to “certain elements that have constantly antagonized the black community, including the Ku Klux Klan and law-enforcement personnel,” Sharpton and the Brawley lawyers demanded that New York Governor Mario Cuomo appoint a special prosecutor to the case and publicly charged that “high-level” local law enforcement officials were involved in the crime—an allegation that led to numerous death threats against members of the Dutchess County police department. Sharpton further demanded that New York Attorney General Robert Abrams be removed from the case because of an alleged “relationship” between Abrams and the Dutchess County sheriff who was, according to Sharpton, “a suspect in this case.” Sharpton insisted that there was “absolutely no way” that his client would talk to Abrams. “That’s like asking someone who watched someone killed in the gas chamber to sit down with Mr. Hitler,” he said.

So the case dragged on, week after week, with Brawley refusing to speak to even a single investigator—ostensibly because she feared that as an African American she would be unable to get a fair hearing.

Then at a March 1988 news conference, Sharpton and the attorneys fingered Stephen Pagones, Dutchess County’s assistant district attorney, as one of their client’s attackers. Further accusing district attorney William Grady of trying to cover up Pagones’ involvement in the crime, they demanded that Governor Cuomo immediately arrest the two “suspects.” When asked what evidence they could provide to substantiate their charges, Sharpton and his cohorts were evasive, saying only that they would reveal the facts when the time was right.

Three months later something very important happened: a Sharpton aide named Perry McKinnon stepped forward to make a remarkable series of disclosures. A former police officer, private investigator, and director of security at a Brooklyn Hospital, McKinnon revealed that “Sharpton acknowledged to me early on that ‘The [Brawley] story do sound like bull---t, but it don’t matter. We’re building a movement. This is the perfect issue. Because you’ve got whites on blacks. That’s an easy way to stir up all the deprived people, who would want to believe and who would believe—and all [you’ve] got to do is convince them—that all white people are bad. Then you’ve got a movement.” Explaining that Sharpton was methodically “building an atmosphere” for a race war, McKinnon continued: “Sharpton told me it don’t matter whether any whites did it or not. Something happened to her...even if Tawana done it to herself.” To prove his truthfulness, McKinnon submitted to a lie detector test administered on camera and passed all questions.

In the autumn of 1988, after conducting an exhaustive review of the facts, a grand jury released its report showing beyond any doubt that the entire Tawana Brawley story had been fabricated, and that at least $1 million of New York taxpayers’ money had been spent to investigate a colossal hoax. Sharpton, however, would concede nothing. He continued to reiterate his claim that Brawley had been brutalized by a gang of whites. In February 1989, he told a Spin magazine interviewer, without the barest shred of proof, that Stephen Pagones had privately confessed to the crime. Sharpton further asserted, falsely, that Brawley’s gang-rape allegations had been confirmed by medical tests whose results were—conveniently—in C. Vernon Mason’s exclusive possession. And finally, for good measure, he lamented that Miss Brawley had tragically fallen prey to a barbaric “white supremist [sic] cult ritual.”

When Pagones sued Sharpton for defamation of character in 1997, the latter portrayed himself as a wrongly persecuted man of honor who, mysteriously, could “no longer recall” having made a number of his slanderous accusations against Pagones and other law-enforcement officials years earlier. When asked whether he had made even the slightest attempt to verify Brawley’s allegations about Pagones before going public with them, Sharpton self-righteously retorted, “I would not engage in sex talk with a 15-year-old girl.”

Pagones won a court judgment against Sharpton for $345,000, which Sharpton never paid. Moreover, during the decade prior to Pagones’ long-awaited vindication in court, the former prosecutor had suffered constant stress and anxiety (exacerbated by numerous death threats from Sharpton’s credulous followers) that contributed heavily to the devastating dissolution of Pagones’ marriage and the virtual ruin of his life. In comparison to what Sharpton did, Don Imus’ recent transgression seems rather minor, doesn’t it? And unlike Imus, Sharpton has never—in twenty years—had the courage or the decency to acknowledge what he did and to apologize for it. Never.

But the Brawley hoax was merely one of the early chapters in Sharpton’s long career as a peddler of racial grievance. Consider his response to the 1989 case of a white female jogger who was raped and beaten nearly to death in New York’s Central Park by a gang of at least 30 black and Hispanic teenagers who later acknowledged that they had specifically set out to target a white woman. Fracturing her skull with a lead pipe and mutilating her face with a brick, the assailants left the woman for dead. She lost three quarters of her blood in the attack and was so badly mangled that even her boyfriend was able to recognize her only by a familiar ring on her finger. When investigators later asked one of the attackers why he had tried to smash the victim skull, he candidly replied, “It was fun.” A multiracial jury convicted several of the defendants on the basis of their own confessions. But Sharpton, who served as an adviser to the boys’ families, said the defendants had been framed by a racist justice system. At one point during the trial, he escorted Tawana Brawley into the courtroom in an attempt to illustrate the alleged inequities of that system. “Those boys aren’t guilty for what happened to the jogger,” Sharpton said. “This is just like the old Scottsboro Boys case.”

Sharpton smelled more blood in 1991, when anti-Semitic riots in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section erupted after a seven-year old black child named Gavin Cato was accidentally killed by a car driven by a Hasidic Jew. Neighborhood residents were enraged by the boy’s death, and within three hours a black mob had murdered an innocent rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, in retribution. At Gavin Cato’s funeral, Sharpton criticized the Jewish community and thereafter organized a series of massive, angry demonstrations. He declared that Cato’s death was not merely the result of a car accident, but rather “the social accident of apartheid.” The contentious activist then challenged local Jews—who he derisively characterized as “diamond merchants” —to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” to settle the score. Finally he claimed, without proof, that the Jewish driver had run over the Cato child while in a drunken stupor.

Stirred in part by such rhetoric and false accusations, hundreds of Crown Heights blacks took violently to the streets, pelting Jewish homes with rocks, setting vehicles on fire, and shouting “Jew! Jew!” The riots continued for three days and nights. Sharpton’s response: “We must not reprimand our children for outrage, when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system.” Five days after the original car accident that had triggered the violence, Sharpton led 400 shouting protesters through the heart of the Crown Heights Jewish community, shouting “No justice, no peace!” The relentless Sharpton even traveled to Israel to search for the driver who had run over Gavin Cato. When angry Israeli onlookers taunted Sharpton with shouts of “Go to hell,” he replied: “I am in hell!”

In 1995, Sharpton led his National Action Network in an ugly boycott against Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned business in Harlem, New York. The boycott started when Freddy’s owners announced that because they wanted to expand their own business, they would no longer sublet part of their store to a black-owned record shop. The street leader of the boycott, Morris Powell, was the head of Sharpton’s “Buy Black” Committee. Repeatedly referring to the Jewish proprietors of Freddy’s as “crackers,” Powell and his fellow protesters menacingly told passersby, “Keep [going] right on past Freddy’s, he’s one of the greedy Jew bastards killing our [black] people. Don’t give the Jew a dime.”

All of this occurred under the watchful, approving eye of Sharpton, who provided some additional sound bites for the media: “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street…There is a systematic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business on 125th Street….[O]ne of our brothers...is now being threatened.” Sharpton exhorted blacks to join “the struggle brother Powell and I are engaged in.” The subsequent picketing became increasingly violent in tone until one of the protesters eventually shot four whites inside the store and then set the building on fire—killing seven employees, most of whom were Hispanics.

One wonders why Al Sharpton’s apparently delicate sensibilities—as evidenced by his current snit over Imus’ comments—were undisturbed by the incessant, ugly rhetoric that accompanied the Freddy’s boycott. Equally inexplicable is how someone with Sharpton’s professed abhorrence for racial insensitivity could have spent so many years as a strong supporter of the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad, whose vulgar diatribes against whites were too incendiary for even Louis Farrakhan to condone.

Perhaps you remember Mr. Muhammad, who publicly referred to Jews as “slumlords in the black community” who are busy “sucking our [black’] blood on a daily and consistent basis”; who said that Jews had provoked Adolf Hitler when they “went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped”; who said that blacks, in retribution against South African whites of the apartheid era, should “kill the women,…kill the children,…kill the babies,…kill the blind,…kill the crippled,…kill the faggot,…kill the lesbian,…kill them all”; who praised Colin Ferguson, a black man who had shot some twenty white and Asian commuters (killing six of them) in a racially motivated 1993 shooting spree aboard a New York commuter train, as a hero who possessed the courage to “just kill every goddamn cracker that he saw”; who advised blacks that “[t]here are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes”; who told a Donahue television audience in May 1994 that “[t]here is a little bit of Hitler in all white people”; and who characterized black conservatives as “boot-licking, butt-licking, bamboozled, half-baked, half-fried, sissified, punkified, pasteurized, homogenized Nigger[s].”

Perhaps you think that an individual who could utter such filth must be a hollow-headed racist. Well, Al Sharpton did not think so, not by any means. In fact, Sharpton actually lauded Muhammad for being nothing less than “a very articulate and courageous brother.”

But such an evaluation makes perfect sense for someone who, like Sharpton, loathes white people and considers them the scourge of humanity. In December 1998, for instance, Sharpton hosted an AIDS forum in Harlem which featured a dozen guest speakers, all but one of whom professed to believe that the disease had actually been engineered by white racists as a tool for genocide against blacks. At another public event, Sharpton declared: “White folks was in caves while we was building empires...We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

Yet today Al Sharpton casts himself as a moral arbiter qualified to pass judgment on the words and actions of an aging broadcaster who recently uttered some stupid remarks that are no more offensive or insipid than a thousand other things he has said during his long radio career. Sharpton contends that Imus no longer has a moral right to hold a job in the industry where he has worked for more than four decades. But if Imus is unfit to be a broadcaster, by what calculus could anyone conclude that Sharpton himself merits a job behind a microphone? The episodes discussed in this article barely scratch the surface of what Sharpton has done to poison race relations for more than 20 years.

If Imus deserves to be fired, clearly, so does Sharpton.

John Perazzo is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at wsbooks25@hotmail.com

-------------

Folks, by the way Radio 1 syndicates Al Sharpton's radio show. I hope some of you will have the guts to protest Radio 1 for the removal of Al Sharpton from his radio show for hate speech.

-------------

Update: Tawana Brawley Grand Jury Report from Court TV:

INTRODUCTION
THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE DISAPPEARANCE AND THE DISCOVERY OF TAWANA BRAWLEY
THE ALLEGATIONS OF WHAT WAS DONE TO TAWANA BRAWLEY.
THE EVIDENCE AS TO TAWANA BRAWLEY'S WHEREABOUTS
THE EVIDENCE AS TO TAWANA BRAWLEY'S MEDICAL CONDITION
THE EVIDENCE AS TO A POSSIBLE SEXUAL ASSAULT
THE PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE
THE EVIDENCE AS TO TAWANA BRAWLEY'S PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST STEVEN PAGONES AND OTHERS
CONCLUSIONS

March 18, 2007

Arab Muslim Jew hatred

You want the truth, folks? Do any of you have the guts to really want to know what Arab Muslims think about Jews? Read this, an excerpt from INN:
Israel's first Muslim Arab Minster of Science, Culture and Sports, Raleb Majadle, refuses to sing Israel's national anthem, HaTikvah. Majadle, a long-time member of the Labor party defended his decision, saying he does not believe that “enlightened and sane Jews” would request a Muslim to sing a song which speaks to the Jewish people. “The Arabs are not in a mood to sing right now,” the Arab minister in Israel's government commented.
Each of you out there who believes that Muslim Jew hatred is rooted in the Israeli government's treatement of potential palestinian homicide bombers at border crossings or is part of the great hoax perpetrated upon the gullible international community - that the "Israeli occupation of palestine" is the root of Muslim Jew hatred - are wrong. Dead, goddamned wrong.

Muslim Jew hatred is part of the culture of Islam. It is part of Arab Muslim identity politics. "All Arabs must stick together", Muslims say. It is tribal behavior. It is regressive thought. Raleb Majadle represents every single Muslim in the world, and don't try to convince yourselves that he represents only himself, or only some Muslims in the Middle East, but not Muslims in the US, blah blah blah. That's bullshit. He represents every Muslim because every Muslim believes - even if its just a little bit - that the only good Jew is a dead Jew.

Raleb Majadle represents what every Arab in the Middle East wants: to deny the goals of Hizbullah and Hamas - which are clearly stated in their charters to destroy the Jewish nation to set the region in flames in order to dictate the Israeli-palestinian agenda.

The fact that Jews in the British Mandate have been attacked by Arabs since the early 1900's - recall the Hebron massacre of Jews in 1929 as one example - was not because of any territorial dispute - but just because Jews existed.

Maybe Islam is the root of the problem in the Middle East. It's not the existence of Israel, a sovereign and legitimate nation. It's Islam.

Currently there are 30 conflicts around the world and 25 of them involve Islam.

If Israel is responsible for Muslim wrath, please tell me what Israel did to encourage Syria to swallow Lebanon, to encourage Saddam Hussein to unleash a bloodbath against Iran, to encourage Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, to encourage Kuwait to expel hundreds of thousands of palestinians, to encourage the Taliban to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan, to encourage the slaughter of Christians in the Sudan, to encourage the bombings in Bali that killed 202 people, to encourage church bombings in Pakistan, or to blow up 200 Indians on the railroad system in Bombay.

It is also outrageous that Muslim Jew-bashers posture about palestinian rights as the core of the problem in the Middle East. All that has done is misrepresent history, misrepresent Islam and misrepresent current facts.

The Muslim Jew haters want the world to believe that the entire Middle East war is due to the fact that those evil selfish Jews are unwilling to share their 10,000 square miles with the poor land-starved Arabs. But in reality, the obvious true cause of the Middle East war is the fact that the Arab world is unwilling to allow the Jews to control even a sixth of one percent of the territory of the Middle East.

The Arabs, controlling more land than any other ethnic group on the planet besides the Russians, are simply unwilling to share even the tiniest sliver of the Middle East with the Jews.

But go on, fools, keep writing your stupid Jew-hating commentary on cowardly, useless shill sites like politico.com, where my post under my nom de guerre was deleted because I dared to write about Arab Muslim identity politics.

The facts on the table are that Zionism has just as much legitimacy as palestinianism. You don't want Zionism? Stop touting palestinianism. Arabs aren't the only ones entitled to self-determination and anyone who thinks that way has just proven that anti-Zionism thinking is racist thinking.

November 05, 2006

Why, despite everything, Jewish-Americans keep voting for Democrats

Folks, this Election Day, November 7, 2006, vote Republican, not Democrat. Here's why, in an article from Joel Engel dated 2004:
For nearly 60 years, since the birth of Israel, American Jews have faced accusations that they care more about the well-being of their ancient homeland than of their home. Well, barring some unforeseen circumstance, the canard of dual loyalty should be retired forever on November 2, 2004. On that Tuesday, Election Day, up to 80 percent of American Jews will pull the lever for John Kerry, thereby proving that they not only do not care about Israel's well-being, but that they don't mind making common cause with people who wish them ill. Or worse.

The evidence is overwhelming that acceptable anti-Semitism has moved from right to left on the political continuum, and that its philosophical home now resides in the Democratic party, which has become less the party of liberals than of leftists. Even before Al Sharpton stood as a presidential candidate last year, Democratic politicians genuflecting for black votes--Al Gore, Bill Bradley, and Hillary Clinton, for example--often trekked up to Harlem to kiss his ring. And yet, this was a man who in previous years had either led or instigated two anti-Jewish demonstrations, one in Crown Heights and one in Harlem, which together resulted in the deaths of eight people. Does that matter to Democrats and John Kerry? Apparently not. Sharpton was rewarded with a choice slot at the Democratic National Convention, something that is impossible to imagine being given to the likes of former Republican David Duke, whose incitements have frankly born far less blood than Sharpton's.

Put aside his disgraceful role in the Tawana Brawley hoax. The fact that Democratic candidate Sharpton never had to answer questions during primary season from either the press or the other contenders about his anti-Semitic statements (to wit: "diamond merchants" whose hands bear "the blood of innocent babies") should tell Jewish Democrats something important about their party. It should tell them that anti-Semites have found safety in numbers.

Partial proof of that was on display in a VIP box at the Democratic national convention, where two other prominent guests were seated shoulder to shoulder: Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore. Considering their on-the-record statements, it's not terribly difficult to imagine them leaning close during breaks to compare notes on Jewish conspiracies and the world's locus of evil, Israel.
Carter's antipathy toward the Jewish state is well-documented, as is his affection for Arab dictators, especially Yasser Arafat. This is a man who endorsed the results of the sham 1996 "election" that transformed Arafat from self-appointed "chairman" to "president" of the Palestinian Authority, while he continues to suggest that President Bush stole Florida and therefore the 2000 election. (Remember, too, that Carter recently ratified anti-American Hugo Chavez's election in Venezuela under dubious circumstances.) Last year's Nobel Peace laureate once confided to historian/biographer Douglas Brinkley how eager he'd been to meet Arafat (another laureate!) for the first time--and why he felt such an affinity for the terrorist leader. He believes that Arafat truly wants peace and that Ariel Sharon truly does not. He considers it self-evident that the whole of the West Bank and Gaza belong to the Palestinians, a bias evinced by his insertion of "the" before the word "territories" in his written discussion of United Nations Resolution 242, though "the" had been specifically and deliberately excluded from the resolution's wording in order to demonstrate that all permanent borders are to be negotiated in good faith. No wonder his Carter Center receives substantial funding from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, at a speech in Liverpool early this year, Moore informed his adoring audience who the world's real villains are: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton." That statement sheds light on why he tried to prevent Fahrenheit 9/11 from being shown in Israel, and is congruent with both his speech denouncing the Israeli "occupation" at a 1990 Washington, D.C. demonstration, and his refusal that same year to attend a screening of his film Roger and Me in Jerusalem unless and until Israel met his demand to withdraw from "Arab lands." Moore has also suggested that we could solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by giving the Palestinians $4 billion worth of advanced weapons. Most egregious, though, was his dedication in the book Dude, Where's My Country? to Rachel Corrie, the pro-Palestinian activist who was killed while impeding a bulldozer sent to find and destroy tunnels used by the Palestinians for weapons smuggling. (Corrie was once photographed burning an American flag at a West Bank demonstration.)

You might think that the Democratic party, which receives 70-80 percent of the Jewish vote and a ridiculous amount of political cash, would have meted out at least verbal spanks to Moore and Carter for their anti-Israel animus. But both men, like Sharpton, remain among the adored--unlike, by contrast, the late Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey, a liberal who was banned from the 1992 and 1996 national conventions because of his stance against abortion. Which leads inexorably to the conclusion that Moore and Carter accurately reflect their party's mainstream.

GIVEN THAT, it's no mystery how the far left has been able to hijack college campuses that used to be seedbeds of civil rights activism--much of it famously led and organized by liberal Jews. Now, under the politically correct cover of Palestinian rights, Jews find themselves lumped in with religious Christians as acceptable objects of revulsion, leaving squishy-left Steinbergs and Goldbergs to wonder what's happening as antiwar, anti-Bush demonstrations rapidly morph into anti-Israel, anti-Jew hatefests. San Francisco State, Duke, Berkeley, and Columbia (whose growing anti-Semitism in the classroom is now the subject of a short film) are only a few of the many schools where Jews have glimpsed the mob mentality of Kristallnacht.

Even individually, college-age anti-Semites feel comfortable enough these days to note publicly, as Duke senior Philip Kurian did recently, that those pesky over-achieving Jews are something of a problem. Inspired by Duke's hosting of the radical Islamist, pro-terror group International Solidarity Movement (to which Rachel Corrie belonged), Kurian unashamedly referenced "the powerful Jewish establishment" and "exorbitant Jewish privilege in the United States" before reaching the crux of his letter to Duke's newspaper the Chronicle: "It is well known that Jews constitute the most privileged 'minority' group in this country. Among the top 10 universities, Jews enjoy shocking overrepresentation."

Note the ironic quotation marks around the word minority, though Jews add up to barely 2 percent of the country's population (one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's); and the word overrepresentation as opposed to "disproportionate representation," whose use would have at least acknowledged Jews' work ethic and devotion to achievement. And then there was "shocking."

But instead of widespread outrage, condemnation, newspaper confiscations, demonstrations about hurt feelings, suspension, expulsion, and even prosecution, which are generally what follow when similar bile is directed at protected "minorities" on campus, Kurian's sentiments earned him nothing more than opprobrium from bloggers generally hailing from the right--Gentile bloggers, mostly. Liberal Jews themselves said little, much as the National Organization for Women fell silent during the Clinton era when the president was proved to be a serial groper; that "D" after his name inoculated him against charges that were similar to--if not more serious than--those that brought the wrath of feminists down on poor Senator Bob Packwood, who had the misfortune of playing serial tonsil hockey with an "R" after his name.

THEREIN LIES the explanation for why American Jews refuse obstinately to accept that the Democratic party's train, which they've ridden since FDR (whose reputation among Jews was less earned than awarded), is now carrying them toward some perilous destination. Sadly, by the time they realize that Harry Truman and Scoop Jackson have given up their conductor seats to Michael Moore and International Solidarity, it'll be too late to get off.

American Jews' allegiance to Democrats is nothing less than a religion. And conversion is considered a sacrilege.

If you ask even the most secular Jew, one who stays home to watch baseball on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, to convert to Christianity--say, in order to marry a shiksa--he'll likely recoil. It's a visceral thing, hatched in the belly eons ago.

So, too, is the notion of pulling the lever for dirty anti-Semite, racist Republicans. That's the catechism. No matter that Republicans booted out David Duke and Patrick Buchanan--or that both of them would find plenty of fellow travelers in today's Democratic party. Catechism states that only Democrats can be authentic liberals.

WHICH IS WHY, once upon a time, it would've given Jews (and all Democrats) pause to hear support for their candidate uttered by the likes of Arafat, Kim Jong Il, and Mahathir Mohamad, the former Malaysian prime minister who endeared himself to billions last year when he opined that "Jews run the world by proxy." Today, such observations are irrelevant to the more important goal of turning George W. Bush out of office. Typical is the email response of a Jewish friend to whom I'd forwarded a Charles Krauthammer column predicting that Kerry will sell out Israel: "Which leaves us . . . Ralph Nader? What folly!!!!" Same with a Jewish woman whose only reaction to every argument on the same subject is to quote chapter and verse from the New York Times editorial page--the bible of liberal Jews.

In their worldview, words are more important than outcomes, especially when those words are uttered by Democrats. Thus, Bill Clinton's can't-we-all-just-get-along peacemaking that relied on the exaltation of Arafat is far preferable to George W. Bush's support for the terror-reducing fence and insistence on new Palestinian leadership--though the former caused the deaths of a thousand innocent Israelis, and the latter has saved innocents on both sides and brought closer the possibility of Palestinians giving up terrorism entirely--which will, of course, bring peace. Instead, Jews circulate angry emails about the lack of Jews in the president's cabinet, as if Clinton's Jewish Agriculture secretary somehow canceled out the shame of Yasser Arafat's permanent White House parking space.

To borrow longshoreman-philosopher Eric Hoffer's phrase, Jewish Democrats are "true believers"--every bit as unquestioning of their faith as evangelicals are. (A year after the Six-Day War, Hoffer had a premonition: "As it goes with Israel," he said, "so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.") And yet they fear evangelicals' unshakeable support for Israel on the grounds that it's biblically based, which is the equivalent of refusing to accept your dog back from the guy who found him after he admits doing it only for the reward. "I fear this presidency," claimed a Jewish man I know, "more than I fear any Arab, Muslim, or al Qaeda terrorist." (This was the same man who emailed me his outrage at there being no Jews in Bush's cabinet.)

Why won't Jews who plan to vote for John Kerry take the senator at his word, and consider the ramifications, when he says that he wants to refract his foreign policy through the prism of the United Nations and the European Union? Nearly one third of the United Nations is comprised of Islamic states, which helps to account for why Israel has been targeted by a relentless barrage of condemnatory resolutions--as well as the disgraceful ruling in the International Court of Justice against the anti-terror fence.

As for Europe, birthplace of anti-Semitism, the European Union publicly wrings its hands over dead Palestinian terrorists but not dead Jewish children and mothers, insisting that there will be peace when Israel withdraws from all so-called Palestinian lands; and if that pullback to the "Auschwitz borders" should someday result in Israeli Jews being driven into the sea, then good riddance. In the unvarnished words of Daniel Bernard, French ambassador to Great Britain, Israel is "a shitty little country" inhabited by "those people" who are putting the world "in danger of World War III."

"F*** the Jews," Republican James Baker snapped during Bush 41's reign more than a decade ago. "They didn't vote for us anyway."

Right he was. And if only 20 percent of them vote for Bush 43, American Jews won't need James Baker--they'll have done it to themselves.

For a supposedly smart people, we can be awfully stupid.

Joel Engel is an author and journalist in Southern California.

September 02, 2006

Another anti-Israel news hoax revealed

The round-the-world reports that Israel had bombed two Lebanese ambulances last month were apparently totally faked. The whistle-blowers ask: How did the Western media let itself be so fooled?

In the last week of July, nearly two weeks into the Israel-Hizbullah war, the international media was filled with reports of an Israeli air attack on two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances - a heinous war crime. The gist of the news was that on the night of July 23, 2006, the ambulances were performing rescue operations when Israeli aircraft attacked them, causing explosions and a fire and injuring everyone inside the vehicles.

Photos of the damaged ambulances were published in many newspapers and websites, and breathless reporters - such as Julian Manyon of ITV News in Britain - bemoaned "Lebanese ambulance men, shocked and bleeding, brought in as casualties to a hospital in Tyre. They were hurt when Israeli aircraft rocketed two ambulance crews..."

One of the more interesting details featured in all the reports was that a missile had struck the exact center of the cross on the roof of one of the ambulances.

Now, however, accumulated evidence shows clearly that the incident never occurred - as has been the case in other media-hyped incidents placing Israel in a negative light.

Much of the evidence to this effect that has been collected thus far can be summarized as follows:
  • Other vehicles hit by Israeli missiles have been completely destroyed, as widely shown in photographs - but the ambulance in question merely has a hole in its pockmarked roof, a disarrayed interior, and broken or missing windows.

  • The hole in the top of the roof, upon closer inspection, is seen to have small screw holes around it at regular intervals - and was probably the location of an emergency light or siren that had been roughly removed.

  • The hole and marks in the roof are surrounded by rust, showing that the damage was weeks or months old.

  • The claim that a man had his leg blown off by the missile is belied by the lack of any blood in the ambulance.

  • The ambulance worker supposedly injured by the missile blast was seen just days later without a scratch.
The most detailed and comprehensive report on the above, including many photos, linked citations from news reports and other sites, and possible alternative explanations of what actually occurred, can be read here.

The editors of the above report conclude that if, in fact, the entire event was purposefully staged,
"the implications are enormous, both for the outcome of the war and for the credibility of the media. Most analysts agree that Israel was pressured into a ceasefire due to international outcry over how it was conducting the battle. The media informed the public that Israel was intentionally targeting civilians; the public insisted that their governments demand that Israel stand down; international pressure was applied, and Israel caved in... Reports that an Israeli missile attack destroyed two ambulances played a role in shaping global opinion, which led to a ceasefire leaving Hezbollah intact.

"But if the entire incident turns out to have been an elaborate but clumsy hoax, where does that leave the reputation of the media? Not a single reporter or editor doubted the story for a second. Or if they did, they certainly didn't inform readers of their doubts. Why did the media swallow the story hook, line and sinker? In their zeal to bash Israel, did they allow themselves, consciously or unconsciously, to be duped by Hezbollah supporters into broadcasting propaganda as news? Or is the media so eager to jump on any fresh scandal that they simply switch off their critical thinking and become absolutely credulous of any juicy tale thrown their way?

"It took the blogs and non-professional independent researchers to shine the harsh light of forensic analysis on this case, in the process debunking just about every aspect of the allegations. And this was done merely with the meager scraps of evidence left over by the 'professional' journalists, and by squeezing the maximum amount of information out of the subtlest of clues. But if the journalists who were right there on the scene had even the slightest interest in actually investigating the story, they had access to all sorts of information that could have blown the lid off the case. How hard would it have been to go back to the Red Cross office after a few days to inspect the ambulance carefully in person? To look at the hole in the roof, to photograph the rust up close, to search for burn marks or blood on the gurneys, to notice the driver's healthy chin? Wouldn't that have been a scandal worth reporting?

"Is the media that gullible -- or does it have a political bias? Either way, its credibility has now been lost."

August 24, 2006

The Great Ambulance Hoax: All your fakes are belong to us

Yup, the Muslims who interface with the terror group, Hezbollah, lied again and set all of you up. Via Michelle Malkin:
On August 6, I linked to Dan Riehl's excellent post raising questions and doubts (his initial post here) about the alleged missile targeting by Israel of the Red Cross ambulances. Infinitives Unsplit first called attention to the dubious ambulance claims on July 27.

Now, Internet documentarian and photojournalist Zombie has compiled a damning, in-depth report on the ambulance claims that the MSM swallowed whole: "The Red Cross Ambulance Incident: How the Media Legitimized an Anti-Israel Hoax and Changed the Course of a War." The intro:
On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.

But there's one problem: It never happened.
I urge you to go to Zombie's site, and review the evidence that Hezbollah set up the Red Cross ambulance fraud and sold it - hook, line and sinker - to the Mainstream Media - who then pitched the lie to you, your co-workers, your aerobics classmates, your beer buddies and the rest of the civilized world. The MSM pitched you a lie - a manufactured entity - shoved it down our throats, never corroborated the evidence against the facts on the table in the similar way to the lie they forced down our throats that "palestine" is a real country. I ask you - are you getting disgusted by the left, who are destructive and dangerous to the rest of us? I sure am. I have had it with their propaganda. The media is detestable. Thank goodness for the blogosphere.

August 18, 2006

Meet a Muslim who thinks the British terror plots are a hoax

Hat tip to Jenny, received by email:

Here is a link to a 14 MB video file ( so don't download it if you don't have a high-speed connection), of a Muslim, Azzam Tamimi of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought, who thinks the British terror plots are a hoax. Talk about delusional thinking.

http://www2.nationalreview.com/media/060815_01.wmv

July 31, 2006

Hezbollywood: Evidence mounts that Qana collapse and deaths were staged

Nasrallah should be executed for War Crimes against the Lebanese people. From Arutz Sheva News Service -
http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com:
Hezbollywood: Evidence mounts that Qana collapse and deaths were staged

It was to be a perfect Hollywood ending for Hezbollah. Just as the Israeli bombing of the village of Qana in 1996 brought a premature end to Israel's "Grapes of Wrath operation," so too a sequel of Qana II could change, once and for all, the direction of Israel's current summer blockbuster, "Change of Direction." Ten years ago, world condemnation of an errant Israeli shell that hit a civilian compound forced then-PM Shimon Peres to curtail the offensive against terror bases.

The setting was also perfect: Kana was again being used as a primary site for launching rockets against Israeli cities. The IDF reported that more than 150 rockets had been launched from Qana and its vicinity at Israeli civilians, wreaking destruction in Kiryat Shmona,Maalot, Nahariya and Haifa. It was only a matter of time before the Israeli Air Force would come for a visit, using pinpoint targeting of the sites used to launch rockets, Hezbollah logistical centers and weapon storage facilities.

On the morning of July 30, according to the IDF, the air force came in three waves. In the first, between midnight and one in the morning, there was a strike at or near the building that eventually collapsed. There was a second strike at other targets far from the collapse building several hours later, and a third strike at around 7:30 in the morning. There too the nearest hit was some 460 meters away, according to the IDF. But first reports of a building collapse came only around 8 am.

Thus there was an unexplained 7 to 8 hour gap between the time of the helicopter strike and the building collapse. Brigadier General Amir Eshel, Head of the Air Force Headquarters, in a press briefing, told journalists that "the attack on the structure in the Qana village took place between midnight and one in the morning. The gap between the timing of the collapse of the building and the time of the strike on it is unclear."

Gen. Eshel appeared genuinely mystified by the gap in time. He "I'm saying this very carefully, because at this time I don't have a clue as to what the explanation could be for this gap," he added.

The army's only explanation was that somehow there was unexploded Hezbollah ordnance in the building that only detonated much later.

"It could be that inside the building, things that could eventually cause an explosion were being housed, things that we could not blow up in the attack, and maybe remained there, Brigadier General Eshel said.

Eshel reported that as recently as two days ago, military intelligence reported the building area had been used by the terrorists for storage or firing of weapons. It was a bad place to cram dozens of women and children.

There are other mysteries. The roof of the building was intact. Journalist Ben Wedeman of CNN noted that there was a larger crater next to the building, but observed that the building appeared not to have collapsed as a result of the Israeli strike.

Why would the civilians who had supposedly taken shelter in the basement of the building not leave after the post-midnight attack? They just went back to sleep and had the bad luck to wait for the building to collapse in the morning?

What we do know is that sometime after dawn a call went hour to journalists and rescue workers to come to the scene. And come they did.

While Hezbollah and its apologists have been claiming that civilians could not freely flee the scene due to Israeli destruction of bridges and roads, the journalists and rescue teams from nearby Tyre had no problem getting there.

Lebanese rescue teams did not start evacuating the building until the morning and only after the camera crews came. The absence of a real rescue effort was explained by saying that equipment was lacking. There were no scenes of live or injured people being extracted.

There was little blood, CNN's Wedeman noted: all the victims, he concluded, appeared to have died while as they were sleeping -- sleeping, apparently, through thunderous Israeli air attacks. Rescue workers equipped with cameras were removing the bodies from the same opening in the collapsed structure. Journalists were not allowed near the collapsed building.

Rescue workers filmed as they went carried the victims on the stretchers, occasionally flipping up the blankets so that cameras could show the faces and bodies of the dead.

But Israelis steeled to scenes of carnage from Palestinian suicide bombings and Hezbollah rocket attack could not help but notice that these victims did not look like our victims. Their faces were ashen gray. Their limbs appeared to have stiffened, from rigor mortis.

Neither were effects that would have resulted from an Israeli attack hours before. These were bodies that looked like they had been dead for days.

Viewers can judge for themselves. But the accumulating evidence suggests another explanation for what happened at Kana. The scenario would be a setup in which the time between the initial Israeli bombing near the building and morning reports of its collapse would have been used to "plant" bodies killed in previous fighting -- reports in previous days indicated that nearby Tyre was used as a temporary morgue -- place them in the basement, and then engineer a "controlled demolition" to fake another Israeli attack.

The well-documented use by Palestinians of this kind of faked footage -- from the alleged shooting of Mohammed Dura in Gaza, scenes from Jenin of "dead" victims falling off gurneys and then climbing back on -- have merited the creation of a new film genre called "Palliwood."

There is increasing evidence that the Kana sequel is another episode in this genre, a variety which might be called Hezbollywood. The Hezbollah have evidently learned their craft well.

The current suspension of Israeli military air activity is supposedly intended, among other things, to be used for the investigation of what really happened at Qana. It is to be hoped that there are real journalists on the scene, and unbiased medical examiners, who will have the courage and intelligence to sort out the anomalies and contradictions, and get to the buried truth of what happened.

There is no shortage of victims in Lebanon and Israel these days. From this vantage point, at this time, it looks like in the case of Qana, the world's media was duped in a cruel and colossal hoax by a terror organization that knows no moral bounds in its exploitation of suffering and anti-Israel hatred. But, as usual, the only party expected to pay the full price will be Israelis.

Yes, it would be a Hollywood ending for it all to end in Qana, exactly as it did a decade ago. But perfect endings, and perfect crimes, are rarely pulled off in real life.

Israelis will not be able to investigate this claim directly. The question remains whether honest men and women of other nationalities will let this likely lie stand or press for the revelation of the improbable and inconvenient truth.

February 09, 2006

A Deeper Look: "Forbidden" Images of Mohammed - Merely a Big Hoax?

Krishna has written an excellent post at A Deeper Look: "Forbidden" Images of Mohammed - Merely a Big Hoax?, where he writes that
As more and more facts are coming to light, its becoming more and more obvious that Moslems have been creating images of Mohammed for centuries. Today's "common knowledge" that Moslems are forbidden to make images of Mohammed appears to be yet another "urban legend".

Undoubtedly some of the more extremist fundamentalist types believe it-- but as the vast number of images throughout history shows, the prohibition against all images of Mohamed is quite obviously not an inherent part of Islam.
Click here to view examples of how Muhammed has been portrayed in art from Ottoman religious icons to market stalls in Iran, from the US Supreme Court building to the South Park cartoon, with hardly a stink.

We Are Back

SmoothStone is excited to announce that we have moved to our new site at: https://smoothstoneblog.net   Look forward to seeing you th...