More anti-Semitism from al-Jazeera, Newsmax of the Middle East...

[JohnLocke]

Go to their home page. Look on the left hand side. There is a link, a book cover. Click on it, and it'll go to another website, which is hawking anti-Semitic filth. It's just an ad, but it's still disgusting:
---------
"To argue that powerful Israeli links do not operate in the United States, that there is no dominant American-Jewish, Zionist lobby in Washington, that the Mass Communications Media and the Entertainment Industry are not largely under American-Jewish ownership and control, or that these influences do not dominate United States policies in the Middle East, is as farcical as it is fallacious."
---------
Just another reason why al-Jazeera is a worthless fish wrapper.

[Forkboy]

1. It could be worse

It could be the JPost :shrug:

[JohnLocke]

2. JPost has never posted such swill. Perhaps INN, but not JPost...

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Not perhaps. INN's articles are rascist swill...

And that doesn't even involve one click or taking a squizz at the advertising. In the case of INN it's the 'journalism' itself that speaks volumes, which is a step above selling advertising for a book. While it's not anti-Semitic to point out the blatant fact that there is a very powerful lobby in Washington, the old anti-Semitic 'Jews control the media' school of thought is. A bit further on in the review it said this: 'Edward Abboud sensibly and scholastically explores the elements of war, propaganda, subversion and conspiracy with scarcely any reference to Israel.' I might be wrong, but would it be too out there to assume that scarcely a reference to Israel may have happened because the author was too busy linking Jews to war, propaganda, subversion and conspiracy? If that's the case, the book would be a bit too stenchridden to bother with at all. And the bit about US foreign policy in the review seemed to boil down to a subservient US doing the bidding of Israel. I think the reality is that it's a mutually beneficial relationship, but with the US not doing anything it doesn't want to do. The US has a client state, just like it has with other states elsewhere, and while US and Israeli aims are roughly in the same ballpark, they'll keep on scratching each others backs, but if the relationship becomes one that's not beneficial to the US, then Israel will get dropped like a hot potato. The US places its own interests first, and that of any other state, even states it calls allies, come in a very poor second. Anyhow, those comments from me were about the book advertised, not about al-Jazeera itself...

Violet...

[Minstrel Boy]

3. If you think that's "anti-Semitic filth," may I recommend this book:

"The Politics of Anti-Semitism, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, confronts how the slur of "anti-semite" has been used to intimidate critics of Israel's abuse of Palestinians. It includes essays by Uri Avnery, Edward Said, Michael Neumann and Bill and Kathy Christison"
http://www.easycarts.net/ecarts/CounterPunch/CP_Books.html

[JohnLocke]

7. So, Minstrel Boy, do you not think that link was *really* anti-Semetic?

[Minstrel Boy]

No, I don't. But then, I distinguish critique of Israel and its lobby from

anti-semitism.

[Darranar]

18. This goes well beyond "critique of Israel and its lobby"...

it is speaking of a great American Jewish/Israel conspiracy to "bring the people and their elected representatives to a condition of subservience and economic exploitation in the service of the State of Israel."

[Andromeda]

47. Very well said, Darranar...

n/t

[Classical_Liberal]

49. It is wrong to smear jews with Israel and the Israeli lobby

but the Israeli lobby and the hardline Israeli politicians they represent are trying to do precisely that, and they are doing a damn fine job of it. The Israeli lobby itself get's more support from fundamentalists and defense contractors. Whether it is a conspiracy or not, I can't say. Certainly one can't define a conspiracy on the rigid notion that no-one knows about it. Even the Standard Oil conspiracy wouldn't be one by that standard.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bombtrack]

12. Isn't Cockburn a Stalinist? I don't think a fringe "intellectual" should

be looked at as anything close to an objective authority on any fringe ideology.

[Vladimir]

15. Define Stalinist n/t

[Darranar]

16. Look at the book reviews...

which are written by the author.

However, he moves quickly and easily into the language of extremism, brandishing final solutions with Jewish intellectuals, unspeakable atrocity, never-forgetting, fear of remnant Nazis, etc.

Under the review of Finkelstein's "The Holocaust Industry".

Is it "extremism" to acknowledge that the murder of six million Jews was an atrocity?

Is it "extremism" to refuse to forget them and their murderers?

[Vladimir]

4. In which case

I expect you do denounce every news outlet that has ever given publicity in any form to O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter and other similar racists... deal?

[JohnLocke]

5. Deal.

No problem.

[Vladimir]

6. OK great

now that we have taken care of most news media in the western world, where do we go from here?

[Forkboy]

8. IsraelNationalNews

:)

[Vladimir]

14. The sad thing is that

I very much agree that authors of books such as the one linked to, and people like Coulter et. al. should probably be doing hard time for incitement to racial hatered. But I find it peculiar to say the least to focus on al-Jazeera when there are so many infinitely more racist papers and news outlets in general closer to home...

[JohnLocke]

17. We already know what trash Fox, et. all, are.

But much of the left-wing has an unjustifiably positive impression of Al-Jazeera.

[Vladimir]

19. To be honest with you

I think that is precisely because its about the only antidote available to the shit that most US media spews 24/7. And Al-Jazeera, judging by reporting and not ads, is mild compared to Fox or most Murdoch rags for that matter. I agree that if it was viewed as objective then that would be a fallacy, but I doubt most people here view any news source as objective (or at least I hope they do not).

[Alerter_]

40. you want to put people in jail for writing books?

Even the Bush regime hasn't gone that far, I don't think.

[Vladimir]

51. No

I want to jail people for racism - certainly more so than for, say, drug consumption. I think we are far too soft in our anti-racist agenda, and someone like Michael Savage is certainly guilty of inciting racial hatered - as such he should at the very least be put in a position where he can spew his filth no more. The book in question is without a doubt anti-semitic, and moreover belongs to a tradition of anti-semitism which is particularly grotesque, i.e. that Jews run the world. And yes, I think the author of shit like that is guilty of incitement to racial hatered too.

[mike_c]

10. you don't like their ads...

...so you proclaim their journalism unreliable? Thanks for pointing this out-- I don't think I'd have seen the logic otherwise....

[JohnLocke]

11. A decent news source would have never accepted such an ad.

[mike_c]

20. what on earth does one have to do with the other...?

The journalism comes from the Al Jazeera reporters and international news wires. The ads come from the advertisers themselves. How on earth could you conclude that "A decent news source would have never accepted such an ad?" The reliability of their news department has nothing to do with veracity of their advertisers. I do doubt that you were the intended target audience, however.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

23. I beg to differ.

The journalism comes from the Al Jazeera reporters and international news wires. The ads come from the advertisers themselves.
The ads reflect on the journalism. For example, WorldNetDaily runs right-wing ads. That is their choice. They have the power to accept and reject ads. It reflects on their reporting and bias.

How on earth could you conclude that "A decent news source would have never accepted such an ad?"

Premise 1: The ad is full of bigotry and anti-Semitism.
Premise 2: That is indecent.
Premise 3: News outlets have power to accept or reject ads.
Premise 4: A decent news source does not run indecent ads.
Conclusion: By premises 1, 2, 3 and 4; a decent news source wouclfd have never accepted such an ad.
What here do you not accept?

The reliability of their news department has nothing to do with veracity of their advertisers. I do doubt that you were the intended target audience, however.

Who was, then? Freeper-like anti-Semites?
:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

[Darranar]

25. More like Buchananite racists. n/t

[Classical_Liberal]

50. Time runs ads for "Left Behind" so I don't know if that is true.

"left behind" is a genocidal screed against Arabs, and it is advertised constantly in mainstream american publications.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fight_n_back]

22. Where are your complaints?

Since you are completely color blind I have to ask why you aren't outraged at the innaccuracies in what was said in those blurbs, let alone the reasons behind them.

[Forkboy]

27. Where are yours?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x71147

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x71100

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x71157

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x71089

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x71091

see ya in the funnies Champ.

[Darranar]

28. This is anti-semitic junk...

what JohnLocke has said or done in the past doesn't change that fact.

Buchanan is against the Iraq war. He is also a nativist, fundamentalist bigot. Does that make opposition to the Iraq war wrong?

[Forkboy]

30. Never claimed otherwise

And sorry,but John's past does come into play.He cries racism but when confronted with it in I/P he agrees with the posters posting it.Then runs to other boards and cries it again.I posit that he sees racism selectively,and only when it's directed towards Israel.

As for Buchanan:why bring that POS into this?I can only deal with so many dummies at once.

[Darranar]

31. That's beside the point however...

I disagree with you about JohnLocke - I think he's a reasonable person truly wishing for peace in the Middle East - but that's not the issue at hand here.

The point remains that Aljazeera posted an anti-semitic ad. Regardless of who pointed it out, it still remains true. JohnLocke's racism or lack of such is irrelevant to this matter.

[Matilda]

24. Sounds like an interesting book.

Telling it like it is.

[Darranar]

26. So "it is" a conspiracy by Israel...

with their "media-controlling" American Jewish accomplices in the US, to take over America?

Is that your contention?

[Matilda]

42. Just the way it is. They have power and they use it.

The first example occurred in 1948 when Pres. Truman supported the
creation of the State of Israel, due to the fact that he wanted
to court 200,000 Jewish voters. He was quoted as saying "I am sorry
gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are
anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of
thousands of Arabs among my constituents." (Quote from book "Anti-
Zionism" ed. by Teikner, Abed-Rabbo, & Mezvinsky.)

Then, as now, they are no different to any other lobby group
anywhere. They have money and clout, and they use it to further
the cause of Israel.

[Vladimir]

56. Who is 'they'?

[geek tragedy]

69. The Jooos

silly.

[geek tragedy]

68. Did you read that in

the Protocols?

The Bush fundamentalist Christians are a far bigger reason for support of Israel than Jews, who OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Gore/Lieberman.

This crap has been peddled for centuries. Go sell it somewhere else.

Edward Abboud is a Jew-hater. It's painfully obvious.

[Darranar]

71. What about those American Jews not...

supportive of AIPAC and the various pro-Likud lobbies? Are they part of the "conspiracy" too?

The major, and most fanatic, support for Israel is not that of the Jewish community, but rather that of the fundamentalist Religious Right.

[Liberal Classic]

43. Damn!

Or should I say Oy!

[JohnLocke]

29. Kick

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

34. "A Jewish controlled media"? WTF!?

[Darranar]

35. "Jewish controlled media"?

More like corporate controlled media...

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

33. Please. Every website on the internet is three clicks away from

filth of some sort.

[JohnLocke]

36. And al-Jazeera is one click.

[stickdog]

38. So? ESPN is as well.

It proves one thing. Advertisers feel that some of al-Jazeera's readers might buy anti-Semitic books. Shocking, that!

It's still a better source than Faux News, and just slightly more biased than the Whorington Post and the New War Times.

[JohnLocke]

39. Got any links?

[stickdog]

41. Dude, I just went there and saw an ad for Bush. (nt)

[Moloch]

44. I don't know about the media and entertainment industy

but AIPAC dominates our middle east policy and sees to it that we give billions upon billions of dollars to Israel. In fact, I believe that AIPAC is the fourth largest lobbying organization in the United States. The Palestinians have no such lobbying organization, so they always get the short end of the stick. It's not anti-Semetic to say that, it's simply stating fact.

[Matilda]

46. You just beat me to it.

To be anti-Sharon, and against the current policies of genocide
(yes, it is genocide) against the Palestinians is not necessarily
to be anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. For anybody to counter any
argument against current policies in Palestine with a cry of
anti-Semitism is a weak and pathetic defence. It is just name-
calling rather than trying to debate the facts.

The right-wing Jewish lobby groups have long fallen back on using
memories of the Holocaust to intimidate anyone who even dares
question Israel's policies, or successive American government
policies towards Israel. But it's been over-used, and doesn't work
very well any more. Defending the state of Israel is one thing,
but in trying to justify the slaughter of innocents and the wanton
destruction of homes, they are hard-pressed to find rational
arguments, so they fall back on emotionalism.

[Jim Sagle]

65. No, it isn't genocide. And everybody goddamn well knows it.

[newyorican]

45. Funny nothing gets said about INN...

a very popular hate-site that doesn't believe in the existence of Palestinians and has a palpable anti-arab bigotry stench. I guess that doesn't bother anyone....

[Scurrilous]

48. LGF gets a pass also...

...let's see what sort of garbage their advertisers are peddling:

http://www.rokemneedlearts.com/proudzionist/

Infidel Apparel-Zionist Slogans-In Arabic


"Jordan Is Palestine"


"There Is No Palestine"

[Classical_Liberal]

52. It is definately a hate site, and it is supposed to be against

the rules in I/P to post from them. I've hit alert. Makes no difference though.

[JohnLocke]

61. See post #2.

[Nlighten1]

53. Exactly how is that quote you posted anti-semetic?

There IS a powerful Zionist lobby in America. The media in America is largely PRO-Israel.

These things are true and it doesn't make them "anti-Semitic" just by saying them.

[Junkdrawer]

54. This thread has certainly started a discussion of pro-Likud bias...

in the media. Somehow, I don't think that was the intent. :P

[Scurrilous]

59. Speaking of intent...

...long before this book ad appeared on al-jazeera's homepage, we got this from the author of this thread:

JohnLocke (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-01-04 12:09 AM
Response to Original message

35. Fuck Al-Jazeera
Al Jazeera should be banned from this forum.

[JohnLocke]

64. Well, woo-hoo for you.

[Jim Sagle]

66. Of course it should be banned. JohnLocke is just stating the obvious.

[Darranar]

72. "Pro-Israel" and under "American Jewish control"...

are quite different things.

[NJmaverick]

57. Being Anti Israel is not being Anti-Semitic

That is a sick game people play to allow Israel to MURDER 10s of thousands. They sickly proclaim anyone that would oppose Israel's EVIL actions as Anti-Semitic. Sorry, condemning what Israel is doing and has done is not Anti-Semitic, it is acting with good conscientious.

[Vladimir]

58. No indeed

but the book, sadly, goes a bit further than that.

[JohnLocke]

60. See post #18.

[NJmaverick]

67. How do you explain the actions of the US

We sit by and do nothing while Israel commits all sorts of atrocities. We even give Israel billions more from our anti terror money. We eliminate Saddam for them, at a huge cost to us. We support their nation and it's land stealing civilian killing ways, which inspires hatred and terrorism against us. We piss off the people with all the oil. We clearly do not act in our nation's insterests when it comes to Israel. I don't know about conspiracy, but it is pretty clear Israel has put their record setting US tax payer donations to good use. They have bought our government lock stock and barrel.

[Darranar]

73. Anyone who lumps up the American Jewish community with the...

pro-likud lobby is spouting anti-semitism.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vladimir]

63. For one thing

because probably the biggest pro-Israel lobby in the US is the Christian fundamentalist right.

Look, the idea that Jews run the world is as old as it is disguisting. There is no question that US policy in the Middle East is pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian, but that is not because Jews run the US - which is what the author of the book implies.

[geek tragedy]

70. Here's a charming excerpt from a review:

"Abboud documents the extraordinary numbers of Jewish officials in the Bill Clinton administration. The phenomenon was so outlandish, given that Jews are only 2 percent of the total American population, that some Washington observers referred to Clinton’s as “the first all-Zionist administration.” The mainline media rarely, if ever, mentioned that ethnic imbalance.

Another example of an ethnically imbalanced institution Abboud cites is National Public Radio. At NPR, he said, 'More Jews present more news about more Jews more often than any other radio or television station outside of Israel.'"

http://www.wrmea.com/html/book_review.htm

Pure anti-semitism.

[the_real_38]

74. sounds like anit-zionism to me...

... and I'm all for that

[Bombtrack]

75. So you're for the destruction of the state of Israel?

That's totally rad man.

[Darranar]

76. Stating that American Jews control the US media...

is simply anti-Zionist?

[Moderator]

77. Locking

These types of discussions should take place in I/P forum per the guidelines provided there.