Was that a good post as all of your cheerleaders came out to claim!!! or was it a bunch of crap taken from somewhere else??!!... the new attack referring to the new invented term "Jewish Taliban" (newer and more improved than the �self hating jew�) exposed the lies and the method you elected to use in order to attack and discredit your own truth tellers!!
Zionist/Israelis around the world continue to invent terms in order to use in personal attacks on anyone that dares to tell the truth and exposes their lies!!!
here is an article which explains where you get your propaganda�
Ain't That America
A Strange Kind of Freedom
by Robert Fisk
Inside the First Congregational Church of Berkeley, the Californian audience had been struck silent. Dennis Bernstein, the Jewish host of KPFA Radio's Flashpoint current affairs programme, was reading some recent e-mails that he had received from Israel's supporters in America. Each one left the people in the church--Muslims, Jews, Christians--in a state of shock. "You mother-
Bernstein's sin was to have covered the story of Israel's invasion of Jenin in April and to have interviewed journalists who investigated the killings that took place there--including Phil Reeves and Justin Huggler of The Independent--for his Flashpoint programme. Bernstein's grandfather was a revered Orthodox Rabbi of international prominence but neither his family history nor his origins spared him. "Read this and weep, you
Indeed, you have to come to America to realize just how brave this small but vocal Jewish community is. Bernstein is the first to acknowledge that a combination of Israeli lobbyists and conservative Christian fundamentalists have in effect censored all free discussion of Israel and the Middle East out of the public domain in the US. "Everyone else is terrified," Bernstein says. "The only ones who begin to open their mouths are the Jews in this country. You know, as a kid, I sent money to plant trees in Israel. But now we are horrified by a government representing a country that we grew up loving and cherishing. Israel's defenders have a special vengeance for Jews who don't fall in line behind Sharon's scorched-earth policy because they give the lie to the charge that Israel's critics are simply anti-Semite."
Nasdaq - I've already told you - Every NYC Woman comes equipped with a built-in Bull-
You have based your entire rant on the writings of yet another Palestinian Propagandist.
Here is what CAMERA - the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America had to say as far back as 1994 about Robert Fisk -
June 2, 1994 by Andrea Levin
The Anti-Israel Rant of Robert Fisk
Usual fare on cable TV's Discovery Channel � documentaries about inventions, nature, and archeology � gave way recently to an unabashedly anti-Israel series entitled "Beirut to Bosnia" and reported by British journalist Robert Fisk. The three films ostensibly examine "why fundamentalist Muslims feel the West has betrayed them." Discovery host John Palmer explains at the outset of the first hour, devoted to Lebanon, that Muslim animosity is a consequence of America having "supported the Balfour Declaration which led to the creation of the state of Israel out of Palestinian land in 1948." The charge of Jewish usurpation of Arab land is Fisk's incessant theme, reiterated by speakers throughout the series and accompanied by vivid images of Arab suffering.
Unmentioned in any of the segments are Israel's rights of nationhood under international law, rights arising out of the same post-World War I League of Nations actions that are the legal basis for Arab claims to surrounding lands. The League of Nations and later the UN both affirmed the ancient and continuous presence of the Jewish people in the land of Israel and the right of the Jews to reconstitute their national home in that country. Ignoring all this, Fisk parrots the standard cant that European anti-Semitism and the Nazi Holocaust resulted in the foisting of an alien people onto indigenous Arabs.
To these familiar elements of factual recklessness and cinematic manipulation, Fisk adds a striking focus on himself as personal witness and commentator. Reminding viewers continuously of his long tenure in Lebanon he claims a deeper insight into the nation, but his films are a testimony to the abandonment of objectivity and an unalloyed advocacy of Arab attitudes towards Israel and the West.
On the rise of Islamic radicalism in Lebanon, for example, he says, "I've watched a friendly Muslim population turn to hate the West...It all started with Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. That year changed Lebanon forever." Lebanon's slide into religious polarization and political anarchy did not, of course, start in 1982, but twelve years earlier, in 1970, when the failed PLO attempt to overthrow Jordan's King Hussein triggered a flood of Palestinians from Jordan into Lebanon. The influx of PLO fighters and the establishment of a PLO mini-state in Lebanon accelerated the unraveling of the fragile relationship of Lebanon's Muslim and Christian groups. By 1975 tensions between Christians, Sunni and Shiite Muslims and Palestinians had erupted into genuine civil war. Not a word of this appears in Fisk's "documentaries" though the reporter notes his arrival in Lebanon in 1976, undoubtedly to cover that war.
Fisk is equally mute about the PLO's reign of terror in southern Lebanon to which Lebanese of all faiths were subjected, and omits completely the seven years Israel endured PLO artillery bombardment and attacks against her population. Thus the 1982 invasion is, in Fisk's inventive history, not an action taken after years of futile Israeli efforts to curb PLO assaults, but an apparently unprovoked aggression.
It seems to me you are equipped with a ZJ woman detector and not a NYC woman detector. I suggest that you check yourself for factory defects!!!
What did you think of the terror attack by Israel yesterday!!! It was successful in taking out the terrorist along with his wife, 14 year old daughter, 8 other children and many Palestinian civilians!!!
Reuters) - Israel killed the commander of the military wing of Hamas and 14 other Palestinians including eight children in an air raid on his home that also wiped out a crowded city block Tuesday, hospital officials said. At least 145 other Palestinians were wounded in the overnight missile strike
Now all of your cheerleaders on this board should come out and congratulate each other on the killings!!! And try to justify the criminal action by Israel!!!
President Bush was not going to oppose these pressures. His father may well have lost his re-election because he dared to tell Israel that it must make peace with the Arabs. Bush is not going to make the same mistake--nor does brother Jeb want to lose his forthcoming governorship election. Thus Sharon's delight at the Bush speech, and it was left to a lonely and brave voice--Mitchell Plitnick of the Jewish Voice for Peace--to state that "few speeches could be considered to be as destructive as that of the American President... Few things are as blinding as unbridled arrogance."
Or as vicious as the messages that still pour in to Dennis Bernstein and Barbara Lubin, whose Middle East Children's Alliance, coordinating with Israeli peace groups, is trying to raise money to rebuild the Jenin refugee camp. "I got a call the other day at 5am," Bernstein told me. "This guy says to me: 'You got a lot of nerve going and eating at that Jewish deli.' What comes after that?" Before I left San Francisco, Lubin showed me her latest e-mails. "Dear
Less crude language, of course, greeted President Bush's speech. Pat Robertson thought the Bush address "brilliant". Senator Charles Schumer, a totally loyal pro-Israeli Democrat from New York, said that "clearly, on the politics, this is going to please supporters of Israel as well as the Christian coalition types". He could say that again. For who could be more Christian than President George W Bush?
Just two months ago, the US House of Representatives voted 352 to 21 to express its unqualified support for Israel. The Senate voted 94 to two for the same motion. Even as they voted, Ariel Sharon's army was continuing its destructive invasion of the West Bank. "I do not recall any member of Congress asking me if I was in favor of patting Israel on the back..." James Abu Rizk, an Arab-American of Lebanese origin, told the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee afterwards. "No one else, no average American, has been asked either. But that is the state of American politics today... The votes and bows have nothing to do with the legislators' love for Israel. They have everything to do with the money that is fed into their campaigns by members of the Israeli lobby. My estimate is that $6bn flows from the American Treasury to Israel each year." Within days, 42 US governors turned up in Sacramento to sign declarations supporting Israel. California governor Gray Davis and New York governor George Pataki--California has the largest Jewish population of any state except New York--arranged the meeting.
Sometimes the support of Israel's loyalists in Congress turns into farce. Tom Delay--reacting to CNN founder Ted Turner's criticism of Israel--went so far out of his way to justify Israeli occupation of the West Bank that he blurted out on MSNBC television that the Palestinians "should become citizens" of Israel, an idea unlikely to commend itself to his friend Ariel Sharon. Texas Republican Richard Armey went the other way. "I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank. I happen to believe the Palestinians should leave... to have those people who have been aggressors against Israel retired to some other area." Do the people of Texas know that their representative is supporting "ethnic cleansing" in the Middle East? Or are they silent because they prefer not to speak out?
Censorship takes many forms. When Ishai Sagi and Ram Rahat-Goodman, two Israeli reserve soldiers who refused to serve in the West Bank or Gaza, were scheduled to debate their decision at Sacramento's Congregation B'nai Israel in May, their appearance was cancelled. Steve Meinreith, who is chairman of the Israel Affairs Committee at B'nai Israel, remarked bleakly that "intimidation on the part of certain sectors of the community has deprived the entire community of hearing a point of view that is being widely debated in Israel. Some people feel it's too dangerous..."
Does President Bush? His long-awaited Middle-East speech was Israeli policy from start to finish. A group of Jewish leaders, including Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz--who said recently that the idea of executing the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was a legitimate if flawed attempt at finding a balance between preventing terrorism and preserving democracy--and the AIPAC and CPMAJO heads all sent clear word to the President that no pressure should be put on Israel. Wiesel--whose courage permeates his books on the Holocaust but who lamentably failed to condemn the massacre of Palestinian refugees in Beirut in 1982 at the hands of Israel's Lebanese allies, said he felt "sadness", but his sadness was "with Israel, not against Israel" because "after all the Israeli soldiers did not kill"--took out a full page in The New York Times. In this, he urged Bush to "please remember that Ariel Sharon, a military man who knows the ugly face of war better than anyone, is ready to make 'painful sacrifices' to end the conflict." Sharon was held "personally responsible" for the massacre by Israel's own commission of inquiry--but there was no mention of that from Wiesel, who told reporters in May that he would like to revoke Arafat's Nobel prize.
Adam Shapiro is among those who have paid a price for their beliefs. He is a Jew engaged to an American-born Palestinian, a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement who was trapped in Yasser Arafat's headquarters in the spring while administering medical aid. After telling CNN that the Sharon government was acting like "terrorists" while receiving $3bn a year in US military aid, Shapiro and his family were savaged in the New York Post. The paper slandered Shapiro as the "Jewish Taliban" and demeaned his family as "traitors". Israeli supporters publicized his family's address and his parents were forced to flee their Brooklyn home and seek police protection. Shapiro's father, a New York public high-school teacher and a part-time Yeshiva (Jewish day school) teacher, was fired from his job. His brother receives regular death threats.
Israel's supporters have no qualms about their alliance with the Christian right. Indeed, the fundamentalists can campaign on their own in Israel's favor, as I discovered for myself at Stanford recently when I was about to give a lecture on the media and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, part of a series of talks arranged largely by Jewish Americans. A right-wing Christian "Free Republic" outfit posted my name on its website, and described me as a "PLO butt-kisser" and asked its supporters to "freep" my lecture. A few demonstrators turned up outside the First United Methodist Church in Sacramento where I was to speak, waving American and Israeli flags. "Jew haters!" they screamed at the organizers, a dark irony since these were non-Jews shrieking their abuse at Jews.
They were also handing out crudely printed flyers. "Nothing to worry about, Bob," one of my Jewish hosts remarked. "They can't even spell your name right." True. But also false. "Stop the Lies!" the leaflet read. "There was no massacre in Jenin. Fiske [sic] is paid big bucks to spin [lie] for the Arabs..." But the real lie was in that last sentence. I never take any payment for lectures--so that no one can ever claim that I'm paid to give the views of others. But the truth didn't matter to these people. Nor did the content of my talk--which began, by chance, with the words "There was no massacre"--in which I described Arafat as a "corrupt, vain little despot" and suicide bombings as "a fearful, evil weapon". None of this was relevant. The aim was to shut me up.
Dennis Bernstein sums it up quite simply: "Any US journalist, columnist, editor, college professor, student-activist, public official or clergy member who dares to speak critically of Israel or accurately report the brutalities of its illegal occupation will be vilified as an anti-Semite." In fact, no sooner had Bernstein made these remarks than pro-Israeli groups initiated an extraordinary campaign against some of the most pro-Israeli newspapers in America, all claiming that The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle were biased in their coverage of the Middle-East conflict. Just how The New York Times--which boasts William Safire and Charles Krauthammer, those giants of pro-Israeli bias, among its writers--could be anti-Israeli is difficult to see, although it is just possible that, amid its reports on Israel's destruction in the West Bank and Gaza, some mildly critical comments found their way into print. The New York Times, for example, did report that Israeli soldiers used civilians as human shields--though only in the very last paragraph of a dispatch from Jenin.
None the less, the campaign of boycotts and e-mails got under way. More than 1,000 readers suspended their subscriptions to the Los Angeles Times, while a blizzard of e-mails told pro-Israeli readers to cancel their subscription to The New York Times for a day. On the East Coast, at least one local radio station has lost $1m from a Jewish philanthropist while other stations attempting to cover the Middle East with some degree of fairness are said to have lost even more. When the San Francisco Chronicle published a four-page guide to the conflict, its editors had to meet a 14-member delegation of local Jewish groups to discuss their grievances.
According to Michael Futterman, who chairs the Middle East strategy committee of 80 Bay Area synagogues, Jewish anger hit "boiling point" when the Chronicle failed to cover a pro-Israeli rally in San Francisco. Needless to say, the Chronicle's "Readers' Representative", Dick Rogers, published a groveling, self-flagellating apology. "The paper didn't have a word on the pro-Israel rally," he wrote. "This wasn't fair and balanced coverage." Another objection came from a Jewish reader who objected to the word "terror" being placed within inverted commas in a Chronicle headline that read "Sharon says 'terror' justifies assault". The reader's point? The Chronicle's reporting "harmonizes well with Palestinian propaganda, which tries to divert attention from the terrorist campaign against Israel (which enjoys almost unanimous support among Palestinians, all the way from Yasser Arafat to the 10-year-old who dreams of blowing himself up one day) and instead describes Israel's military moves as groundless, evil bullying tactics."