An extraordinarily insightful column from the always perceptive Caroline Glick. "Our World: The media and enduring narrative," from the Jerusalem Post, July 8:
Last Wednesday's terror attack in Jerusalem was unique. Due to the fact that Husam Taysir Dwayat bulldozed his victims outside of Jerusalem Capitol Studios where many of the foreign television networks have their offices, his was one of only two attacks to have been caught live on camera.The only other attack which was filmed was the lynching of IDF reservists Yosef Avrahami and Vadim Novesche at a Palestinian police station in Ramallah on October 12, 2000. That attack, which showed the mob basking in the blood of the two men, was filmed by an Italian camerawoman from the privately owned Mediaset television station. The attack last Wednesday was filmed by the BBC whose correspondent Tim Franks witnessed the carnage from the outset through his office window.
Their film documentation is not the only things those two attacks share. The lynch in Ramallah and the attack last Wednesday are also the only attacks that elicited abject apologies by otherwise arrogant media giants. In the aftermath of the lynch, Riccardo Cristiano, Italy's state-owned RAI network's correspondent in Israel, wrote a groveling apology to the Palestinian Authority in which he went to painstaking lengths to explain that it was not his network, but his competitor that published the footage.
In the letter which the PA published in its Al Hayat al Jadida daily, Cristiano fawned, "We always respect the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for [journalistic] work in Palestine and we are credible in our precise work. We thank you for your trust, and you can be sure that this is not our way of acting. We will not do such a thing."
ON FRIDAY, the BBC published an apology for broadcasting the footage of Wednesday's carnage. The film showed an unarmed, furloughed IDF commando climb onto Dwayat's bulldozer just after Dwayat murdered Batsheva Ungerman by crushing her car. It showed the soldier grabbing a gun belonging to a security guard who was unsuccessfully trying to restrain Dwayat and shooting Dwayat three times in the head. The film did not show Dwayat or any of his victims dying. What it showed was the terror of the wounded, Dwayat's murderousness and the soldier's heroism.
Yet, the network declared, "It's not normally the BBC's policy to show the moment of death on screen. These are always extremely difficult decisions to make. However, on reflection, we felt that the pictures featured on Wednesday's News at Ten did not strike the right editorial balance between the demands of accuracy and the potential impact on the program's audience."
At first glance, it is not at all clear what the BBC was talking about. Its film was a journalistic achievement. Through it, tens of millions of people worldwide were able to see for themselves what a terror attack against innocents looks like from a fairly sterile angle. What did the BBC have to apologize for?
In this case, as in the case of the lynching eight years ago, the reason the BBC apologized is not because the film's images were too gruesome, but because it strayed from the accepted narratives of the Palestinian war against Israel. To maintain the narratives, "the right editorial balance between the demands of accuracy and the potential impact on the program's audience," is one that engenders the belief that Israel is either morally indistinguishable from the Palestinians, or that Israel is morally inferior to the Palestinians.
The metaphor for the first narrative is the so-called "cycle of violence." The BBC itself spelled out this narrative in the aftermath of the lynching in Ramallah. In a program called, When Peace Died, broadcast in November 2000, the BBC explained, "Two images captured the hatred that has destroyed the peace process in the Middle East. Mohammed al-Dura, the boy from Gaza, shielded by his father but still dying under a hail of bullets fired by Israeli soldiers and the lynching and brutal murder of two Israeli reservists by a Palestinian mob."The metaphor for the second narrative is the Holocaust. It was perhaps made most explicitly early on by Catherine Nay, a well-known news anchor from Europe1 network. In late 2000 Nay declared, "The death of Muhammad [al-Dura] cancels out, erases that of the Jewish child, his hands in the air from the SS in the Warsaw Ghetto."
THE STORY of Muhammad al-Dura plays a central role for both narratives. On September 30, 2000, France 2 public television network's bureau chief in Israel Charles Enderlin aired a 57-second, heavily edited film which he proclaimed portrayed then 12year-old al-Dura being killed by IDF forces at Netzarim Junction in Gaza. France 2 distributed the film for free to the global media and al Dura's image became the emblem of the Palestinian war against Israel. It directly incited anti-Jewish violence in Israel and throughout the world.
Questions about the veracity of the France 2 account arose immediately. An IDF investigation launched by then OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia proved through ballistic evidence that it was physically impossible for IDF forces to have even shot - much less killed - al-Dura. Over the ensuing years, a handful of journalists and researchers produced a wealth of evidence demonstrating that Enderlin's story was false.
One of the researchers was a media critic named Philippe Karsenty. He asserted that the film was a hoax on his Web site Media Ratings and dared Enderlin and France 2 to sue him for libel while demanding that they release the 27 minutes of film they claimed they had of the September 30, 2000 incident at Netzarim Junction.
While refusing to release the footage, Enderlin and France 2 did sue Karsenty for libel. In late 2006, after receiving a letter of recommendation for Enderlin from then French president Jacques Chirac, and in spite of the reams of evidence supporting his claim that Karsenty presented at the trial, the court convicted Karsenty. Karsenty appealed the ruling.
The appellate court ordered Enderlin and France 2 to produce the unedited footage. Although he refused to show the footage in its entirety, from the 19 minutes of rushes that Enderlin did present, three things became obvious. First, the IDF could not have killed al-Dura. Second, the footage showed Palestinians staging scenes of fighting with imaginary IDF forces. And third, the footage showed no evidence that al-Dura had been shot or that he died that day at Netzarim Junction. The judge overturned Karsenty's conviction.
IT MIGHT have been thought that the French, Israeli and international media which had for seven years supported Enderlin against the small band of independent investigators would finally abandon him. So too, it might have been thought that after seven years of defending an indefensible piece of journalistic malpractice Enderlin would finally own up to his misdeed. But the opposite occurred.
In Israel, leading left-wing commentators like Gideon Levy, and Tom Segev in Ha'aretz, Arad Nir from Channel 2 and Larry Derfner from The Jerusalem Post accused Karsenty and his allies of waging a witch hunt against Enderlain to advance their political agendas. In France, the media initially ignored the story.
Then, less than a week after the verdict, the Who's Who of the rather large anti-Israeli branch of the French media published a petition in the left-wing Le Nouvel Observateur decrying Karsenty's exhaustively documented dossier against the al-Dura story as a "seven-year hate-filled smear campaign." In all, some 300 reporters and hundreds more notables signed the petition. For their part, France 2 and Enderlin announced their intention to appeal the ruling to the French Supreme Court.
In her account of the court case and its aftermath in the Weekly Standard, French journalist Anne-Elisabeth Moutet attributes the French media's reaction to what she sees as a uniquely French practice of never apologizing for misdeeds.
There is doubtlessly some truth to this. But arrogance is not the unique trait of the French media and elite. And given the near universality of media arrogance, how can one explain the BBC's quick apology for its broadcast of its footage from the attack in Jerusalem last week? And how can one explain Cristiano's obsequious letter to the PA in 2000?
THE ANSWER of course is that arrogance alone cannot account for the media's defense of Enderlin. If Enderlin had been caught broadcasting a libelous report about the Palestinians, the media and France 2 would have cast him off immediately. But here there is more at stake than one man's reputation. Enderlin didn't create the narrative of Palestinian innocence or at least moral equivalence. In filing the clearly false story of al-Dura, Enderlin was advancing a cause that all his anti-Israel colleagues in France, Israel and worldwide have embraced. If he goes down, their indispensable narrative is liable to go down with him.
Over the past eight years of the jihad against Israel, among countless examples, three instances of open media collusion with Israel's enemies stand out for their strategic impact on the course of events. First there is the al-Dura affair. It was followed by the mythical "Jenin massacre" in April 2002. That in turn was followed by the fabricated "massacre" at Kafar Kana in Lebanon in July 2006.
The al-Dura story solidified the Palestinian narrative of victimization by Israel just months after they rejected statehood and peace at Camp David. When the so-called Jenin massacre was reported in April 2002, the IDF was in the midst of Operation Defensive Shield. Just before the Palestinians began making allegations of an Israeli massacre, IDF forces uncovered documentary evidence proving that the Palestinian war against Israel was run by the PA and Yassir Arafat. By fabricating the massacre, the PA was saved from being delegitimized as an actor in Washington. The Israeli peace camp was also resuscitated from its death throes.
As the Winograd Commission documented in its final report on the Second Lebanon War, the media reports of the fabricated massacre of Lebanese civilians by an IAF bomber in Kafr Kana in South Lebanon caused US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to end US support for an Israeli military victory over Iran's Lebanese proxy and to pressure Israel to accept a cease-fire leaving Hizbullah intact.
Even as analyses of the reports from Jenin and Kafar Kana like the reports on the al-Dura affair clearly demonstrated that the IDF had committed no atrocities, the distorted footage put out by the media made it impossible for Israel to defend itself in the court of public opinion. Like the al-Dura affair, the media's open collusion with the Palestinians in Jenin and Hizbullah in Kafr Kana prolonged false narratives predicated on Israeli aggression which were about to be finally laid to rest.
So it is not merely arrogance that makes Enderlin and his colleagues unwilling to come clean anymore than it was humility that made the BBC and Cristiani apologize. Depressingly, what all of this illustrates is that the media will only give us the information they wish us to have. And that information's relationship to the truth is arbitrary at best.
The media has always been a tool to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses.
Another example was the "secret plans by Israel and the US to attack Iranian nuke installations."
Sure, "secret plans" that everybody knows about.
So what was really going on?
From the article above:
the distorted footage put out by the media made it impossible for Israel to defend itself in the court of public opinion.
Like the al-Dura affair, the media's open collusion with the Palestinians in Jenin and Hizbullah in Kafr Kana prolonged false narratives predicated on Israeli aggression which were about to be finally laid to rest.
Want to know the "true truth?" Follow the damned money.
Great article. Thanks for posting it.
Three previous postings (April 27, 2005 ) on the scandal of the BBC:
#1, "The BBC effectively has an Islamic agenda..."
Not so much the BBC, but a number of powerful people at the BBC. The BBC World Service is run by John Simpson (whom google, along with "jihadwatch"), deeply anti-American and anti-Israeli, who in turn reports to the Foreign Office, for the World Service is under its control.
Another factor is that the kind of semi-educated young, without any particular skills or training, who are picked up by the BBC. Like hires like. Someone who appeared to believe that Islam exhibited many of the features of Fascism, or who thought, for example, that the cost of Muslim migrants in the Western world or the U.K. was simply too high for the indigenous Infidels to continue to pay, would not be hired by the B.B.C. today or, if hired, promoted. Someone who was seen to read The Telegraph, and not The Guardian or The Independent, someone who did not think that the American government was necessarily entirely of the devil's party, someone who seemed to think that Western civilization might actually exist, and be worth protecting, is unlikely to be hired by the B.B.C. today. It is not only a question of high policies. It is a question of personnel. In this respect the B.B.C. is only a more extreme case of NPR, or for that matter of most academic departments of literature and history.
Think of the mental makeup of America's Bright Young Things. Think of their proud parents, describing those 2-3 month "internships" by which well-off and well-connected young people, go for a few months in Moscow (battered women), or Cambodia (teenage prostitutes), or Darfur (black refugees). They may know not a word of the relevant local language (so just imagine what that means), they arrive to "help" for a few months, and then just as quickly depart (while the real workers stay on and on), and these 2-3-4 month stints presumably give them an "insight" into things and, though they would not recognize it, prove valuable to them, in helping swell their resume and hence their future job prospects, just as the enterprise of colonialism permitted those middle-class British or French or Belgians who went out to the colonies to live lives that, materially, were an improvement on what they would enjoy at home.
The old colonialist has been replaced by the NGO careerist. The propagandist for Empire has been replaced by the propagandist (on the BBC) for Arab imperialism. It has been the most successful and most damaging imperialism in world history. For the Arabs used Islam, a faith concocted to justify and promote Arab conquest, as a vehicle for Arab supremacist ideology. Those conquered by Islam, and forcibly converted (for the need to escape the onerous conditions of dhimmitude certainly constitutes "force"), did not merely convert. They surrendered their own histories, their own pre-Islamic pasts. They assumed Arab names, and false Arab lineages. They took as the models of behavior some Arabs of the 7th century -- the sole models of behavior. It has been an extraordinary phenomenon. No European imperialists came close to such an achievement, whereby those conquered remained unaware of the extent to which their minds and histories had been appropriated -- and permanently.
[Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2005 10:06 AM]
#2.
How does your theory about Simpson and the Been..."
I present no "theory" about Simpson. He is what he is, deeply anti-Israel, so deeply that it must emerge from that pathological condition which all civilized people have gotten use to detecting.
I will now introduce into evidence Simpson's review of the absurd book by his good friend Peter Hounam. Hounam has been doing what damage he could to the state of Israel for the past 30 years, perhaps most effectively in his encouraging the quasi-demented Mordechai Vanunu in his own revelations; indeed, when last heard from, Hounam had been arrested in Israel for more of the same. Hounam wrote a book about the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, which the Israelis always maintained was an accident, with considerable evidence, and their version of events was completely vindicated not only by the book-length investigation of an American judge, but by the tapes of the pilots' conversations, finally released by the American government a year or two ago.
Nonetheless, it is one of the favorite topics of American and other antisemites. James Akins likes the topic; so do the Saudis and all of their hirelings. And John Simpson and Peter Hounam are fond of it. Hounam even wrote a book, "The Cyanide Conspiracy," which charges that the attack was deliberate, that it was crchestrated from within the American government by pro-Zionist agents, and that it was designed to be a casus belli between America and Egypt. All nonsense, answered in detail, in a study by an American judge whose work has been reinforced by the releaste, at long last, of the pilots' tapes -- nonsense for all but confirmed antisemitic conspiracy theorista and (or perhaps better: "that is") the likes of John Simpson. .
Here is his review:
OPERATION CYANIDE: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War
III, by Peter Hounam, Vision, a division of Satin Publications, Ltd, London,
2003, $24.95
Since it reviewed A. Jay Cristol's book, THE LIBERTY INCIDENT, in August 2003,
MILITARY HISTORY was bombarded with letters, including some from outraged
survivors, insisting that the Israeli attack on their ship on June 8, 1967,
was not in error, but deliberate (see letters, P. 8), and demanding that the
guilty party confess to the crime. Absent from all such accusations, however,
was a substantial explanation of motive: What would make it worth Israel's
while to attack a ship -- even a spy ship -- being operated by one of its
few supporters in the world?
In OPERATION CYANIDE, Peter Hounam, an investigative reporter for the
SUNDAY TIMES and the British Broadcasting System with 30 years' experience,
presents the results of his research into the question of "who really dunnit,"
which evolved into more of what he called a "why dunnit." Hounam structures
his book accordingly, as the reader follows him from interview to interview,
gathering clues like a detective from testimonies that tend to be scattered,
fragmentary, guarded and sometimes almost cryptic. As Hounam "connects the
dots," however, the scenario that emerges is fantastic and yet, in view of
the United States' rush to war with Iraq in 2003, not entirely implausible.
In essence, President Lyndon B. Johnson and some key officials, seeing the
increasingly Soviet-leaning Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser as a
threat, made secret arrangements to help Israel in its coming June offensive
with the intention of toppling Nasser. As part of Operation Cyanide, USS
LIBERTY was sent to operate off the Sinai coast, where it was to be sunk
with all hands by unmarked Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats, after which
the United States would blame the attack on Egypt and launch carrier air
strikes against Cairo -- with nuclear weapons if necessary. The stubborn
refusal of LIBERTY'S crew to die or let their ship sink after 75 minutes
of air and sea attack -- in spite of two American carrier sorties to aid
her being inexplicably called back -- led to the cancellation of Operation
Cyanide, Israel's apology and offer of restitution for a "tragic mistake,"
the Johnson Administration's swift acceptance of that explanation and an
equally quick, reassuring "hot line" telephone call to Soviet premier
Alexei Kosygin.
The first book to seriously examine the possible reason behind the attack on USS LIBERTY, OPERATION CYANIDE presents fragmentary evidence to
support an extraordinary theory. If, however, the emergence of further evidence proves its premise to be true, one cannot help but wonder if
their being set up for destruction by the government they swore to serve, in the interests of starting a nuclear war based on a lie, is the sort of truth that LIBERTY'S bitter survivors were hoping for.
Jon Guttman
================================================================================
BOOK REVIEW OF "OPERATION CYANIDE"
By John Simpson
BBC World Affairs Editor
This is an extraordinary story, one of the most extraordinary, perhaps, of the entire twentieth century. Suppose, in an attempt to shore up his
critically damaged presidency, Lyndon Johnson deliberately engineered an event in which American lives were sacrificed and the United States was brought disturbingly close to an all-out nuclear war with Russia? Supposethis involved a secret agreement between Israel and American intelligence, which resulted in an Israeli attack on an American naval vessel, in the latter stages of the Six-Day War?
It sounds, I know, like one of those depressing conspiracy theories which cluster round every big controversial event from the death of Princess
Diana to the attack on the World Trade Centre. People often have problems in handling the banality of truth, and prefer to imagine deeper, darker plots beneath the surface. Yet this book is based on careful, rigorous investigation by a well-known and respected journalist who has metic-
ulously tracked down the people and the documents who have survived from the event itself: the attack on the USS Liberty, in the eastern Mediter-
ranean in June 1967.
As with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, four years earlier, the official version is even more unlikely than some of the conspiracy
theories. In order to believe the hasty, often contradictory account which came out of Washington, you would have to accept all sorts of
virtual impossibilities: that Israeli planes and torpedo boats could have mistaken a modern American warship of ten thousand tons for an elderly Egyptian horse transport less than a quarter of its size, come to within fifty feet of it without spotting that it was flying aparticularly large American flag, and blazed away at it from close range for forty minutes
before realizing what it was they were shooting at. A hasty American enquiry immediately afterwards called it 'a bona fide mistake.' That
seems, to say the least, a little implausible.
Yet this is the official version, which stands to this day. Any other version -- that of the Liberty's surviving crew members, for instance --
has been extremely hard to establish because of the intensity of the security blanket which the Israelis and Americans wrapped around the
entire incident.
The blanket remains in place to this day, yet this book provides sufficient evidence for any open-minded person to see that something
else lies underneath: something very disturbing.
I have found Peter Hounam's research compelling, and the story which unfolds in these pages rivetting. It is time a little daylight was
shed on Operation Cyanide. This book does precisely that, and we should be grateful for it.
John Simpson
Paris
October 2002
-------------------------------------
Do you still think that it is a "theory" about John Simpson, the man who conveys the Foreign Office line, along with a considerable anti-Israel animus, deeply felt, passionately believed, of his own, to everyone (not that everyone needs encouragement -- Judy Swallow doesn't, nor do a good many others on the BBC World Service) at the BBC World Service.
As for the detestable Orla Guerin (married, I think, to a "Palestinian" Arab), she has no business being awarded anything, and has no business being kept on in a job where she can mouth her venomous views, paid for by the hapless license-fee payers of Great Britain, not all of whom can possibly enjoy enduring the requirement that they pay the salary for someone who is as much part of the enemy camp, as Lord Haw-Haw or Tokyo Rose.
[Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2005 1:36 PM]
#3
Note, please, that were this understood as the kind of war it is, a man like John Simpson would be treated as were Nazi sympathizers during World War II. He would long ago have lost his job, and at the very least be under surveillance. That he helps to mold minds all over the world, at the direction of the Foreign Office, and that he continues to keep a real sense of what Islam is all about from listeners everywhere (even as he endorses, and even accepts and repeats, the most absurd anti-Israel canards, like that of Peter Hounam), gives one pause.
If there is any conspiracy, it is one involving rich and powerful Arab interests, who have bought and paid their way into the chanceries, and the minds, of Western leaders everywhere. Sometimes the bribery is clearcut, as with Chirac. Sometimes it comes indirectly, through the promise of business deals (chiefly armaments sales and oil concessions to the oil companies of sufficiently-compliant nations).
Does John Simpson have friends and acquaintances in high places? How could he not? He is in a very high place himself. Is he friendly with Alistair Crooke? With James Akins? With Patrick Seale? Does he get along well with Edward Mortimer, Chief Speechwriter to Kofi Annan, himself the enthusiastic endorser of a book by Lennie Brenner about how Zionists collaborated with Nazis -- as vicious a book as can be imagined, but one that was a positive boon to our Edward (quasi-plantagenet) Mortimer when he went looking for work at the U.N. and, having just come off a stint of Euro-Arab Dialoguish stuff, was the right rat for the right office at the right U.N.
[Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2005 1:54 PM]
All hail the TRUTH! I love Caroline Glick, no one, but no one, writes about the situation in Israel with more clarity than she.
And they wonder why we don't trust the media!
We had similar stories about the US military in Iraq, propagated by none other than John Murtha, that distinguished representative.
It's why absolutely nothing that portrays a Muslim as the victim can be believed anymore. Remember the boy who cried wolf. Someday there will be a genuine massacre of innocent Muslims (probably by a Muslim leader) and all of us will whistle while we work. Only their friends in the media will listen to them. No one else will care.
BBC:
...However, on reflection, we felt that the pictures featured on Wednesday's News at Ten did not strike the right editorial balance between the demands of accuracy and the potential impact on the program's audience."
"The demands of accuracy" = not being able to get away with lying outright
"the potential impact on the program's audience" =
what we want the audience to believe
The vast majority of the TV footage of "Palestinians" dancing in the streets on 9/11 was confiscated by "Palestinian" "police" from the submissive Western media. Those "reporters" who were already outside the PA areas with their film, got phone calls from "Palestinian" authorities ominously warning the dhimmi "reporters" that their personal safety "could not be guaranteed" next time they show up in "Palestinian" areas unless they give up the footage. The cowardly "reporters" sheepishly went back and surrendered the videos. Little thuggery goes a long way with the cowardly US and European media. The videos of the "Palestinian" jubilation that we did see showed only the tip of the tip of the iceberg of what actually went on. Nothing like atrocity to inspire "Palestinian" joy.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
The BBC is a self serving psuedo political organisation that does not have the decency of declaring themselves as such.
What is more you are forced in the UK to pay a license fee for them to serve up their propaganda dressed up as objective news reporting. You can opt out but that means no TV at all. There again it is getting to 200+ channels and nothing to watch!
The shooting of the Muslim murderer was a stirring sight for those who knew that someday they might be victims of attacks, in their own capitals, by Muslim terrorists. It lifted hearts. It concentrated minds. It gave people ideas, ideas about how to behave. It no doubt made many in the Western world wish that their own children had received the kind of training, and had the ability to use it, that this brave no-nonsense young Israeli exhibited. It was an example in How To Do It.
The video contained this message, that no one had to utter: "yes, this is the way to behave, this is the way to do it." And that's exactly why so many Arabs and Muslims, the ones who are on the staff of the BBC, who are all over Bush House, or who have willing collaborators, what the Chinese used to call "running-dogs" -- these are the "running-dogs of the Jihad" (world-wide, or some local component, it does not matter)-- who do not need to intimitde the BBC from outside, though they do plenty of that. No, they are right inside the BBC.
See the scandal of Orla Guerin, married to a “Palestinian” and conveniently reporting on the “Palestinian people” from Israel, and Gaza and “the West Bank”; of Barbara Plett, another BBC reporter who reported on Israel and openly wept on the radio when Arafat, one of the most repulsive figures in history, died; see hard-voiced Lyse Doucet, yet another example of the same phenomenon. Oh, they were so scandalous that even the BBC, unrepentant of course, but determined to cut off the criticism that was getting serious (certain important reports on the BBC’s coveraage have been kept from being released to the British public by the BBC itself), did move Orla Guerin to southern Africa, did move Barbara Plett to Afghanistan (or was it Pakistan?) and Lyse Doucet (for a while, anyway, to Pakistan (or was it Afghanistan?). Don’t worry. From the Middle East, the BBC coverage – despite the “loss” of Orla Guerin, and Plett, and Doucet, is still the same.
Yes, it’s the mixture as before. It’s a special Bush House concoction. A heady blend. It’s a special mixture of antisemitism, philo-Arabism, apologetics for Islam, and leftist sympathy for what is presented as a case of “third-world liberation struggle” by a (recently-invented) “Palestinian people,” which is how the BBC, never stooping to history or context or daring to recognize the elephant-in-the-room of Islam, presents the Lesser Jihad carried out by all Arabs, and supported by many non-Arab Muslims, who merely use the local Arabs – the Gazan Arabs, and the “West Bank” Arabs, and those Israeli Arabs who, as in Galilee, have been more and more showing a deep hatred, a deep ineradicable disloyalty, despite having received all the considerable benefits of Israeli citizenship -- as the front-line shock troops of that Lesser Jihad, one that has no end, against the Infidel nation-state of Israel.
Seconding Hugh.
The young soldier, Moshe, has offered kafir an object lesson in How To Do It.
It was particularly striking for me, for my eldest son is exactly the same age as Moshe.
If you want to know how some Israelis feel about the incident, here's the headline of the July 2 2008 entry in a blog called 'smoothstone':
"Muslim terrorist yelled "allah akbar", same Muslim terrorist righteously obliterated".
http://smoothstone.blogspot.com/
[you have to scroll down a bit].
The language used to describe the bulldozer jihadi assassin is about what the angrier guests here use on occasion - and one can understand why.
"The vast majority of the TV footage of "Palestinians" dancing in the streets on 9/11 was confiscated by "Palestinian" "police" from the submissive Western media."
Posted by: Enragedsince1999
They were still too late. We saw enough of it before they pulled it off the air to understand how they felt about 9/11. And some of us have never forgotten it and never will.
Muslims think THEY have long memories?
Been at the beach all day with the wife but had to comment here on this story. First, I've read Caroline Glick for years. She's fabulous. She shines a Churchillian light on truth time and time again. In fact, more than once I, as well as a few friends of mine, have opined that she would probably make a great Prime Minister.
Second, thanks to Hugh again for heaps of pertinent infomation, especially about this John Simpson character. When I read he thinks Oswald didn't do it or didn't act alone (Oswald most definitely was the sole assassin) and that the Warren Commission report has more holes in it than some conspiracy theories (not even close---every JFK conspiracy theory has far more holes in it than the official account, which is true in any case), I knew right then and there he is a loon, as Hugh's post so amply demonstrates.
I assume that the media believes that the public can't handle the truth. Any thing that might encourage them to have a bad additude must be downplayed or modified or left out.
A few years ago in Minneapolis the police were accused of using a plunger to assault a man.
Months later, his civil suit resulted in a jury giving him no money (In other words not proving his case) this was on page 3 or 4 of the Star Tribune. I suggested to a police officer that if it had gone the other way it would have been on page one. I could see it being the "Story of the Day"
As we say in Minnesota Ouffta
Hehadahat: Out here in the Northwest we say Uff-da! You must be a Swede or something :)