Friday, September 18, 2009


From its beginning this blog's major aim has been to reveal important events and facts which have been omitted from the “news”. Here is a relevant statement from an interesting book I've been reading, “All The News Unfit to Print” by Eric Burns (John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2009):

'[I]t is possible for a journalist to lie without actually misrepresenting the facts . . . by simply turning one's back on the truth. Actually, the latter is an easier way to lie than misstating the facts; it does not require any energy or special storytelling skills, nor does it require that one remember the details of the falsehood so that he can recall them later. One can be passive rather than active. For this reason, ignoring the truth has been an attractive alternative to many dishonest journalists over the years for many different reasons, from ideological bias to financial gain to sheer indolence.' p. 141

'Some years earlier, the Wall Street Journal had demonstrated that it was possible to tell a lie not by omitting the truth, but by hiding it away in the interior pages of the paper. In other words, a publication does not have to ignore reality to provide a disservice to its customers; it needs only to report it in a context that makes it seem less significant than it really is. Burying the lead, this is called in the news business.'

Monday, September 14, 2009



I have repeatedly emphasized an obvious fact which has been kept from the American people's attention. The cause of the attack on the Twin Towers was the United States' support of Israel's aggressions and illegal occupation and theft of land in Palestine. The attack was not for such stupid "reasons" as "They hate freedom" or "They don't like our way of life." It was plain and simple a war on the Israel/US coalition which has brought poverty, torment, and captivity upon the Palestinian people.

The painstaking ignoring of the obvious has been achieved by refusal to report numerous statements by Arabs that the cause of Muslim hostility to America is Israel. Now Bin Laden himself, the planner of 9/11, has issued a statement which makes the cause specifically clear. But will you hear these important words on television? I doubt it.

'(AGI)[Italian News Agency] - Washington, 14 Sept - Three days after the eighth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden has once again made himself heard. In an audio message the al Qaeda leader warned the American populace over the close ties between its government and Israel,"which induced me to plot the attacks on the Twin Towers." The message was broadcast on an Islamic site used in the past by the terrorist network. "The time has come for you to break free from the fear and ideological terror of neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby which wanted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bin Laden in the message, called "Declaration to the American Populace".

[He] then explained the "reasons for the dispute" with the American populace: "your support for Israel, which occupies our territory in Palestine". In the message Bin Laden said that there had not been a true change in US policy, since Obama has kept representatives of the Bush administration in the government -such as Defence Secretary Robert Gates. "The White House is under the control of pressure groups. Instead of fighting to free Iraq as Bush wanted, the White House is what needs to be freed. The bitter truth is that neoconservatives continue to cast a heavy shadow over all of you."'

(Neoconservatives is a sugarcoated word for Jews who moved into the Republican Party, primarily to exert their support of Israel there.)




Tuesday, July 28, 2009


Writer 1: “Here's the Henry Gates story.”

Editor: “Hm. 'Black Professor Arrested Breaking into Own Home.'
Nope. Get rid of everything after 'Arrested.' And build him up some.”

“Famous Black Professor Arrested. . . “

“Can't you do better than 'famous'?”

“Uh. Very Famous Black. . . “

“Jesus! Do I have to think for you!”

Writer 1: "Prominent?"

(Sounds of mixed approval.)

Writer 2, inspired: “Eminent!”

Writer 1: "Great! Eminent Black. . . “

Editor: “It's okay, but 'Eminent' doesn't sound much better than famous to me. Is there something stronger?”

(Writers consult thesaurus.) “Preeminent!”

“What does that mean?”

“More than eminent. The greatest of the eminent.”

(Reading) “Greatest in importance or degree or significance or achievement. With superiority or distinction above others.”

“Now that's more like it! Better than anybody else.”

Writer 2: “What makes him preeminent?”

“I have no idea. Jesus! Don't you know how things work? And spice up “Professor.”


“Yes! Preeminent Black Professor and Scholar Henry Gates. . . “
Keep it coming.”


“Good. Preeminent Black Professor and Distinguished Scholar Henry Gates. . ."

“Henry Louis Gates.”


“Okay: 'Preeminent Black Professor and Distinguished Scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Arrested Entering Own Home.'”

“Let's fly with that.”

(A few minutes later. . .)

Writer 2: "Chief, something doesn't make sense to me. Last week you told us to take 'Black' out of 'Black Youth Arrested on Seven Rape Charges' but today you told us to say 'Black Professor'. I don't get it. They both got arrested."

"Christ. Who let you in here?"

Saturday, July 25, 2009

The Case of the Missing Rabbis

“The Washington Post, NEW YORK, July 23 -- A two-year federal probe into a money laundering operation taking place between the New York area and Israel ballooned into one of the biggest bribery and corruption sweeps in New Jersey history, netting three northern New Jersey mayors, two members of the New Jersey Legislature, a raft of local officials, five rabbis, and a Brooklyn man accused of trafficking in human kidneys, U.S. prosecutors said today.
“FBI agents arrested 44 people in a series of morning raids, creating a dramatic scene of politicians and rabbis in traditional outfits handcuffed and being marched into the federal building in Newark, and then boarded onto a bus for the drive to the federal courthouse.”
“The arrested rabbis included Saul Kassin, the chief rabbi for the tight-knit Syrian Jewish community in the United States, and the chief rabbis of synagogues in Brooklyn and Deal, N.J. “

Doesn't that seem like a story that would be relished by American television? Dozens of prominent politicians paraded in front of cameras on their way to jail, juicy eye-catching pictures of handcuffed rabbis sporting black hats, long coats, and pigtails? I expected it to be the featured story on the evening news, but I looked in vain.

Now, class, can anyone tell me why the tale was overlooked, or dare we suggest suppressed, by the usually scandal-hungry media? Hint: Note the words “Israel” and “rabbis”.

I laughed when I learned that some published accounts referred only to “religious leaders”. You can be sure that if the “religious leaders” were Christian evangelists or Roman Catholic priests we would have seen them identified as such and pilloried on every evening news program in the United States.

Courtesy of Google, we can see how journalistic excitement over this story grew!

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Obama versus Israel

This blog began in November 2006 with the question,“What is being omitted from the U.S. news reports that logically should be there?” What information is being omitted or distorted? It turns out that the purpose of most such censorship and misrepresentation was to protect Israel and further of the goals of the Zionist/Israel lobby. A particularly egregious example is occurring at present.

The president of the United States is directly confronting Israel with vigorous demands – demands, not coy suggestions – that the self-proclaimed Jewish state cease certain activities which are preventing a resolution of the “Palestinian issue” and are preventing a successful conclusion of the "peace process". These activities primarily involve the Jewish “settlements” beyond the Palestinian land already stolen in the name of Israel, as well as activities within Jerusalem. The activities are illegal, and break promises made to Bush administration.

In response to the unequivocal presidential demands, the Israeli government simply says, “No.” This brings to mind the image of a petulant little child balking at a direct parental order – but is the winner so easily predictable?

Have you noticed headlines or lead-ins to television news programs which trumpet this head-on conflict? I have not seen even a mention of it on TV or in the major news services – with this exception “Israel Rejects U.S. Call to Halt Jerusalem Project”. Other reports have appeared in relatively obscure places. . . even though President Obama has made his demands in interviews and public speeches. From the 'Jerusalem Post' I classify Israel's 'Jerusalem Post" as "obscure" because it is probably unknown to 99% of Americans.

It would appear that in this serious conflict the United States holds all the cards financially, diplomatically, and militarily, and yet the Israel lobby wields tremendous power over Congress and American politicians generally. Jewish pressure groups like AIPAC openly boast (more openly within Israel than in the U.S.) that they can get anything they want from Congress. A recent demonstration was the line-up of obedient senators and representatives who parroted support for Israel's barbaric invasion of Gaza in the exact same words conveniently supplied to them by their Zionist masters.

The question is, will Obama's determination be undermined by Congress, whose hand essentially controls the flow of money to Israel? What powers can a president exercise in such an international situation? Can Obama influence his own party more than a foreign nation's pressure groups can? This is a fascinating situation which would almost monopolize television news except for the Zionist desire for a blackout.

I predict that in American public commentary Obama will now be depicted – with never a reference to his confrontation of Israel –less and less as a knight in shining armor and more and more as a questionable adventurer in tarnished tin. Such a fate befell George Bush, Sr., when he tried to pressure Israel; almost overnight George the First tumbled from the bright star of the first Iraq war into the mud and lost his chance for the reelection that had seemed certain a few days before – while probably not one in a million Americans knew why he was suddenly demoted from darling to dodo.

Friday, January 9, 2009


On the same day that the International Red Cross and the United Nations condemned Israel for violations of international law, including deliberate murder of UN aid workers, the United States Senate enthusiastically passed a resolution supporting Israel's invasion of Gaza in every way. While the Red Cross presented detailed stories of Israeli forces deliberately causing the deaths of wounded civilians and small children through neglect, even though Israel's military had posts within a few yards of such horrific scenes, U.S. senators cheered Israel on by voting in favor of a resolution written by Israel's chief American lobby AIPAC ('American Israel Public Affairs Committee'). The resolution unreservedly endorses and supports the murderous Israeli invasion and the lie that Israel is “retaliating” for unprovoked Gaza aggression.

Every senator who voted for the resolution put before him by Israel has branded “murderer” and “coward” on his soul. Those people have no moral or ethical principles, or regard for truth, which can stand up against their fear of not being reelected. They know that in the United States a politician's fate is determined by the good will or ill will of the Zionists who work here to support Israel, and the Jews who support the more active Zionists. And Israel knows that it can do anything, no matter how despicable or illegal or disapproved by the rest of the world, because it can count on the obedient support of American politicians and administrations.

The passive American public's perception of Israel is based on lies, and so it is necessary to repeat once again that Israel in Palestine is an invader, an occupier, and a thief of other people's land and water, as documented throughout VIEW FROM THE MOON. It is also important to remember that Hamas, reviled in the US and Israel with the phony “terrorist” label, was driven into Gaza by violence after its candidates were freely elected as the legitimate government of Palestine.

The current Israeli massacres in Gaza – like the many more limited ones in the past – are obviously timed to inflict the maximum possible damage on Palestine's government and people while the docile Bush administration is still in power. If Israel does not “trust” Obama, we can only hope they are right, and that Obama's pre-election bows to the Zionists were no more than an essential part of getting elected. For me, the great test of Obama will be whether or not he casts off the yoke of Israel.

Here is what the United States Senate supports:, Friday 9 January 2009 11.38 GMT
'At least 30 people were killed in the Zeitoun district of Gaza after Israeli troops repeatedly shelled a house to which more than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated by the Israeli military. According to testimonies gathered by the UN, Israeli soldiers evacuated around 110 Palestinians to a single-storey house in Zeitoun, south-east Gaza. The evacuees were instructed to stay indoors for their own safety but 24 hours later the Israeli army shelled the house with rockets. Around half the Palestinians sheltering in the house were children.'

Wednesday, January 7, 2009


Coming from the Washington Post, this is astonishing. It mentions many significant facts about Palestine, Gaza, and Israel which are studiously kept buried by our nightly television news toadies. I've noticed that some of those TV "personalities" are looking noticeably uncomfortable about the Israeli slaughter in Gaza, and the lies used to justify it, and yet restrict their personal protest to squirming and changing the subject. Their body language reveals their true feelings but isn't revealing enough to get them fired through Jewish pressure.

Israel's Gaza Gamble

By Mahmoud Sabit

This has been a particularly brutal two weeks in the tragic saga of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. It's not very clear as to what precisely all this death and destruction is supposed to accomplish from an Israeli perspective. The utter defeat of Hamas? There's no consensus that this can accomplished by military means; Hamas is an ideological organization with strong support in Gaza, and their structure is woven into the very fabric of the refugee camps. To cow the civilian population of Gaza into withdrawing their support of Hamas? This is not very likely, especially after the sheer quantity of explosives showered on Gaza like confetti, and their resultant toll on the civilian population. Civilians tend to harden their determination when subjected to a constant diet of explosives, as the Germans learned during the London Blitz in WWII. As an election 'gimmick' to show how 'tough' Israel's leaders can be? Perhaps Israel's leaders have lost all sense of moral and ethical proportion if they believe that bombing an oppressed civilian population and its choice of leadership into a state of total submission following two years of virtual siege is a measure of toughness or lack of 'squeamishness.' To present President-elect Barack Obama with a fait accompli when he is sworn in later this month? A crisis that will force the new administration's hand upon taking office? It would not be the first time an Israeli government has attempted to impose its narrow agenda on an incoming U.S. administration.

Whatever the reason, it is a serious gamble, and a gamble without any likely long-term benefits. On the contrary, the long term implications do not benefit the interests of arriving at a final and just settlement to all parties in this dispute, whether Israeli, or Palestinian or Arab. It's certainly a gamble that may change the perspective of Arab governments in their interests in a rapprochement with Israel. There has been for the past few years an offer of peace to Israel by the Arab countries formulated in the Beirut Declaration of March 2002. This offer has so far been gathering dust, unaddressed by Israel, and it could be withdrawn (though this is not really likely.) The pressure from Arab public opinion as a result of this situation may well force the hand of some Arab governments to withdraw their support of this Declaration. To so dramatically reveal the Arab governments' inability to influence anyone at all on the conduct of Israel in Gaza would strengthen the position of Iran and its allies in the region. These are potentially serious consequences. For Israel to gamble with such possibilities is to engage in a serious disservice to their Israeli constituency as well as to their Arab neighbors.

Any and all civilian deaths and casualties should be deplored, be they Palestinian or Israeli. Firing homemade rockets into Israeli territory and bombing civilians in Gaza with modern ordinance are both acts that do not advance the cause of peace. Neither will tormenting a quite helpless refugee Palestinian population in Gaza with an economic embargo, nor denying its basic right to some sort of compensation through an overall peace settlement, nor attempting to coerce them into an abject capitulation to Israel's demands.

As for Hamas, they exist solely as a result of over 40 years of brutal Israeli occupation over the Palestinians without any recourse to a just settlement that would allow these people to have some sort of choice for their own future. At first the PLO/Fatah represented their interests, but Fatah was not able to deliver, thanks to Israeli intransigence and U.S. complicity. Thanks to a compliant U.S., Israel has an effective Security Council veto on any inconvenient resolution that this international body considers that might in any way restrict actions Israel considers 'appropriate' - which may or may not be abhorrent to the international community.

So when a free and open election took place in 2005, Hamas was elected to lead the Palestinian people, not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank. Hamas was brought into power because they are an element just as intransigent, just as doctrinaire and just as hard headed as past Israeli governments have proven to be. The reaction by Israel, the U.S. and Western Europe to this election was, as expected, vociferous. Even the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders, however odious they may be considered, has been denied them. In a cynical display of moral outrage, Israel and the U.S. conspired with Fatah to topple Hamas, through violent means. The end result was that Gaza remained under Hamas control, whereas the West Bank effectively came under Fatah control. In addition Gaza has been under an economic embargo for several years now, causing immeasurable hardship to the Palestinian civilian population, in effect reinforcing a brutal occupation with a state of siege, actions more reminiscent of the excesses of the Middle Ages rather than the 21st century. If Hamas is considered so unsuitable today, 60 years after these Palestinians became refugees, perhaps Israel and its allies should have entered into a sincere and just settlement with more acceptable Palestinian partners decades ago.

Possibly one of the more sinister aspects of this tragedy is the clumsy attempt through media 'spin' to portray Israeli civilians as victims in this crisis. When we see on our TV screens and computer monitors the effects of Hamas 'rockets' on Israeli communities, compared to the sheer havoc wreaked by Israeli high explosives on the Gaza urban landscape and its civilian population, the educated and informed can safely put this fiction aside. As of a couple of days ago, in an TV interview with the BBC, Dr. Mars Gilbert at Dar el Shifa hospital in Gaza informed us that the overwhelming majority of casualties he had treated were civilians and that of the 900 casualties that they had so far cared for at Dar el Shifa, 25% of the fatalities and fully 45% of the wounded were women and children.

In an article that appeared January 7, 2009 in the UK, Avi Shlaim, a respected Israeli historian and Oxford University scholar, wrote that Israel had become a 'rogue' state, by definition a state that ignores and violates international law at will, has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and practices terrorism (the use of violence against civilians for political purposes.)

In another BBC World interview with another noted Israeli historian, Tom Segev, when posed the question, "After the fighting is over, what should then happen?" answered, "We shall have to talk to Hamas - they may be a terrorist organization, but they are also a political party, a social welfare movement and the elected representatives of the Palestinian people."

These educated and informed Israelis are well aware of the fundamental truth of this situation, which is that Israel's long term security, its very survival, relies on making a just and equitable peace with the Palestinians, making peace with the rest of the Arab World, and making the Arabs their best friends as quickly as possible.

From an Egyptian perspective, the government is not thrilled that Hamas is in this leadership position with the Palestinian people. They are after all the 'little' brother of Egypt's own Muslim Brotherhood, opponents today of the Egyptian government. Egypt also realizes that Hamas will probably survive this onslaught; their survival will be considered a victory and may well have serious repercussions in the Arab World. In short this Israeli gamble, ill-timed, ill-conceived and ill-advised, may well reinforce and encourage political Islamist ideologues and their extremist elements in the moderate Arab World. If Hamas does not survive, even more extremist elements may replace them in Gaza - elements that have been waiting on the sidelines for just such an opportunity, including al-Qaeda.'