Wednesday, 19 September 2012

Bad News From Israel

The true bad news from Israel is that some "Jews" continue to put Israeli lives in danger by betraying Israel like the Judas that they are. 

It is grotesquely ironic that a book which claims to uncover bias and distortion in the media, should be one of the most biased and distorted books, on this very same conflict, I have ever read. Then again, what would you expect from Pluto Press, which deals  in ‘radical approaches’ to politics and the news and which regularly features work on, or work by Chomsky, Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, John Pilger and a whole host of other professional Far Leftists and kapos? 

More specifically, the book’s ‘Acknowledgements’ section includes the names Ken Loach, John Pilger, Norman Finkelstein and other well-known Marxists/Trotskyites Self-Hating-Israel-Threatening kapos)

 “Overall, the results from our study [shown in the book Bad News From Israel] suggest that it was Israeli perspectives which predominated in TV news.”
-         Glasgow University Media Group (Greg Philo, Mike Berry, etc.)

(Note on the above quote.)

This is a passage from the book Bad News From Israel which deals with the media’s (with a platonic ‘M’) ‘distorted and biased coverage’ of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Actually, it is a book which claims to uncover much pro-Israeli bias and distortion.

The US has more correspondents in Israel than any other country. The UK has the second-largest number of correspondents in Israel.

Now, why is that?

Is it because what’s going on in Israel and Palestine Fakestine is far more momentous and bloody than what’s going on in, say, the Congo, Nigeria, southern Thailand, the south of Sudan, Kurdistan, or even what’s going on in Syria at this precise moment?

Is it to do with a deep love of the Palestinian Fakestinian ‘oppressed’ and a deep hate for the Israeli ‘oppressors’?
Is it because Leftists and Liberals see the Fakestinians as the perfect "Brown Exotic" whom they can patronize (ala 'retarded dhimmified and insecure imbecile' Lauren Booth) as well as to use them, and their situation, as a testing ground for their Marxist/Trotskyite theories about capitalism generally, as well as about ‘Zionism’?
Do they really have a deep sympathy for the Fakestinians or are they more motivated by their hatred of (Israeli) democratic capitalism and Israeli Zionism and why these things are the great sins of Leftist ideology?

There are more mundane reasons for this fixation on the Israeli/ Fakestinian conflict – this monomania of the Left and of the liberal ruling class.

For example, because most of the journalists now in Israel have no real knowledge of Middle Eastern history, or of the Arab language, then of course they are drawn to Israel, which is largely a Western culture and in which many Israelis speak English. Such journalists may be drawn to Israel, and thus the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, even if they are absolutely against Israel’s actions and its realities. They still enjoy Israel’s bars, cinemas and the nightlife to the lack of Muslim/Arab alternatives.

Concomitant to all this is the fact that the surrounding Arabic speaking countries constitute what some western journalists call ‘the arc of silence’. In these Muslim-Arab countries the media is strictly controlled by authoritarian and sometimes by totalitarian regimes. Gaza and the Muslim occupied areas in Israel too, are part of the arc of silence but less so.  It is less so precisely because of the conflict with Israel and the fact that Fakestinian forces and politicians know full well how important the Western media, and the West generally, is to their cause -   and they have known this since the early days of Arafat’s PLO in the 1960s.

Opposed to all this is the blatant fact that Israel is a democracy with a free press… as well as nightclubs and bars.

Again, is it any wonder that so many Western journalists prefer to be in Tel Aviv or even Jerusalem than in, say, Jeddah, Damascus or even Cairo or Nablus? This is certainly the case for the more ‘shallow’ journalists; but I’m sure that hardcore brain-dead "ideologists" of the Left still nonetheless appreciate the freedom Israel affords them to slag it off in their many articles and statements… as well as enjoying the night clubs and bars. (Such hypocrites!!) 

In the case of Gaza and other Muslim occupied areas in Israel which the media refers to as "Palestine",  when journalists make the crossing from Israel, such Western journalists will evidently rely on Palestinians Fakestinians to ‘escort’ them. (This is to be expected, I suppose.) These Muslim invaders will often actually supply them with the news they want and which will later be consumed by the equally brain-dead masses in New York, London or wherever.

More specifically, it has been said that “over 95% of the TV pictures going out on satellite every evening to the various foreign and Israeli channels are supplied by Palestinian fakestinian film crews”.
Again, this is understandable – they are in the "West Bank" or Gaza. However, we must obviously realise that these film crews, and others in the media, will identify emotionally not only with the Muslim invader fakestinians as a people (if they are a people), but also with things like the intifada. More to the point. These film crews would never dare to embarrass the Palestinian fakestinian authorities and Hamas. After all, the "West Bank" and Gaza are not democratic and free areas like Israel – and not for reasons only of the conflict or Israeli ‘intervention’. These territories are Arabic and Islamic after all. In Islam there is no freedom, nor democracy. There is only slavery of mind and spirit. 

The blame is not entirely to be placed on fakestinian film crews.

For example, at one point an NBC correspondent in Israel was asked why reporters turned up at Palestinian fakestinian demonstrations in the "West Bank" that they knew were being staged by militants. The correspondent replied: “We play along because we need the pictures.”

Case Study: the Intifada

Things, in the territories, can be more extreme for Western journalists than simply relying on fakestinian help, as it were.

According to Steven Emerson, a former CNN reporter, US reporters accepted the control Palestinian fakestinians had over what they filmed.

This is a life or death matter.

For example, an Israeli cameraman, who worked for various US networks, said that “if we aim the camera at the wrong scene, we’ll be dead”.

So, instead, the best option would be to rely on the Palestinian fakestinian supply of ‘news’. More specifically, this resulted in various journalists handing out dozens of video cameras to these Muslims so that they could supply them footage of various newsworthy events.

So let’s get back to the ‘first intifada’.

Take 1989. In this year of the first intifada, over one-in-three of the fakestinians killed were killed by their fellow fakestinians. That is interesting in itself. However, of the 150 stories filed by US networks from the "West Bank" that year, only 12 of them recorded the Muslim-on-Muslim killing that was going on at this time. 

A more general point can be made about the intifada and the Western coverage of it.

At the time, the NBC’s Tel Aviv bureau chief, Martin Fletcher, said:

“The whole uprising was media-oriented, and, without a doubt, kept going because of the media.”

Fletcher shows this by saying that he and other journalists accepted invitations from young Palestinians fakestinians to film their attacks against Jewish residents of the West Bank.

Another example of Western-journalist acquiescence to fakestinian views, and, indeed, control, is seen in the situation of an Associated Press (AP) cameraman who had filmed fakestinians at a rally in Nablus celebrating the attack that was 9/11. As a result of his showing the support that many Muslims had for the 9/11 slaughter, he was summoned to a Palestinian fakestinian Authority security office and told that his material should not be aired. More disturbingly, this Western journalist was threatened with death if he aired the film. What's new? 

The terrible thing is that the cameraman requested that the material not be aired. AP also submitted to the threats and refused to release the footage. Under Hamas, things can only be a lot worse than this. 

No wonder Muslims are becoming very confident that they can get away with such intimidation and threats. The more people comply with such absurd demands the stronger these bullies become. 

Another case. In August 2002, the Palestinian fakestinian journalists union banned Western journalists, and, of course, their own journalists, from photographing Palestinian fakestinian children carrying weapon or taking part in activities organised by terrorist groups because the pictures were having a negative effect on the image of Palestinians fakestinians. 

However, as many readers will know, we have lots of these pictures!
It's not the pictures that portray these Muslims in a bad light but their own lack of civilized culture and twisted way of life. 

By: P. Murphy for JDL UK
Comments by JDL UK

Note to the reader:

We do not recognize "Palestine", nor do we recognize a people called "Palestinians", which obviously do not exist.; hence we call them fakestinians. 
These people are simply Arab Muslims who came from several other countries with the purpose of invading Israel and taking over Jewish land.

JDL UK Team 

1 comment:

  1. Bad News From Israel which is very sad news for me as well. The true bad news from Israel is that some "Jews" continue to put Israeli lives in danger by betraying Israel like the Judas that they are very affected in this mater. I am sure the bad day will not stay many days. It will be peaceful space for Israel and is being..
    economy news