I agree that in many cases references to "Zionist control" are coming from Nazi
zealots, like Dick Eastman, who are dusting off the propaganda memes developed
by Adolf Hitler.
But it is also true that Zionists themselves refer to themselves as Zionists
(Zionism is their chosen ideology, after all), and that Zionists exert a great
deal of influence in American politics and in the American mainstream media
that many Americans find to be destructive and contrary to the best interests
of Americans as a whole. A particular branch of militant Zionists
(neoconservatives), led in part by >>the ZOA (the Zionist Organization of
America)<< is responsible for the $2-trillion foreign policy disaster in Iraq
and for the assault on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
So one must take great care to approach this volatile subject with the utmost
precision. Above all one must be very careful not to associate "the Jews" with
Zionists or to blame Zionists exclusively for misdeeds that have also been
committed by many other non-Zionist and non-Jewish groups.
With regard to Sam Zell: will he attempt to turn his media properties into
Likud/neocon propaganda outlets? Simple content analysis will provide the
answer to that question over the next year or so.
With regard to the free Internet: a cabal of multibillionaires -- the same
cabal which presently controls the mainstream media -- is presently plotting to
overthrow the free Internet and transform it into yet another version of Rupert
Murdoch's Fox News. Does my language sound too conspiratorial, too over the
top? Well, I am describing reality as it is.
What will happen? That's a no-brainer: these folks are setting themselves up
to be regarded as the most vile villains in American history. It boggles my
mind that they don't know when to put a brake on their greed gland. They are
going much too far and are going to trigger a cataclysmic backlash. The
rumblings of the coming earthquake are everywhere. They may well end up losing
every penny of their fortunes. Picture Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
History teaches us, for all the obvious reasons, that it is never a smart
idea, a politic idea, for any particular group to horde and abuse too much
wealth. Eventually the offending group discovers the limits of its control and
may lose everything.
LeaNder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Somehow the idea of a Zionist control of MSM feels too close to Nazi
propaganda for me. As the term "wake up" (used in the link below) triggers Nazi
imagery for me, innocent as it may be.
But I agree or maybe hope that Zell will fail if he tries this (thanks to
Sean's Google Reader)
Zell wants End to Web's Free Ride
Sam Zell is going to loose billions
A couple of decades ago I thought if people like Zell had their way the web
would soon turn into a strictly economical affair. All gates would be closed
and only open via credit card details. That's what it looked like, but it did
not happen.
this feeling has been growing lately so it had to come out before I leave again.
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Albert Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> YOu think a few outbursts of criticism means waning Zionist control over MSM?
> Perhaps you didn't notice that Sam Zell just bought the Tribune company from
> the Chandlers. That's a sizeablel chunk of MSM real estate. And I haven't
> noticed any sales of current Zionist holdings recently -- or ever.
>
> Vigilius Haufniensis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1005
> Zionist control over the media wanes
> It started with Mearsheimer and Walt's scathing critique of AIPAC's influence
> on US politics, but really took off after israel's brutal attack against
> defenseless civilians in Lebanon and Jimmy Carter's condemnation of israeli
> apartheid in Gaza and the West Bank.
> Now, people from all walks of life are coming out to call a spade a spade.
> Zionists are now on the run and pretty soon they'll have nowhere to hide from
> the blazing scrutiny of an unbiased media.
>
> In the space of three days, major critiques of Jewish lobbying were published
> by controversial billionaire George Soros, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist
> Nicholas Kristof, the respected British newsmagazine The Economist and the
> popular Web site Salon.
> The replies were furious. The New York Sun accused Kristof and Soros of
> spreading a �new blood libel.� The American Jewish Committee�s
> executive director, David Harris, wrote in a Jerusalem Post opinion article
> that Kristof had a �blind spot� and had �sanctimoniously lectured�
> Israel.
> The editor of The New Republic, Martin Peretz, renewed an attack on Soros
> that he began a month ago when he called the Hungarian-born Holocaust
> survivor a �cog in the Hitlerite wheel.�
> The outburst over Middle East policymaking was triggered in part by the
> annual Washington conference last week of the pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse,
> the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a highly publicized event that
> put the issue of pro-Israel influence in the media spotlight. A parade of
> politicians and presidential candidates came to the conference to declare
> their unwavering support for Israel, while the lobby itself reaffirmed a
> hard-line agenda that included cutting all American ties with the new
> Palestinian government.
> At the same time, the latest attacks and counterattacks were also a
> continuation � and an escalation � of an ongoing debate in Washington
> over the purported role of the pro-Israel lobby in shaping American policy in
> the Middle East and stifling debate. Those attacks reached a peak of venom
> last year with the publication of a contentious document by two senior
> political scientists, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the
> University of Chicago, who charged that a sprawling, powerful �Israel
> Lobby� had pushed the United States into war with Iraq.
> Among the latest group of critics, Soros, the billionaire philanthropist and
> currency trader, was the harshest. In an article in The New York Review of
> Books, published
> Monday, he argued that the United States is doing Israel a disservice by
> allowing it to boycott the Hamas-Fatah Palestinian unity government and to
> turn down the Saudi peace initiative. But, he wrote, there is no meaningful
> debate of such policies.
> �While other problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed,
> criticism of our policies toward Israel is very muted indeed,� Soros wrote.
> He added that pro-Israel activists have been �remarkably successful in
> suppressing criticism.�
> Soros singled out Aipac as a key source of the problem, accusing the lobby of
> pushing a hawkish agenda on Israeli-Palestinian issues. �Aipac under its
> current leadership has clearly exceeded its mission, and far from
> guaranteeing Israel�s existence, has endangered it,� he wrote.
> Soros�s article was noteworthy in part because it broke his longstanding
> practice of avoiding public identification with Jewish causes. While he has
> given hundreds of millions of dollars in the past decade to democratization
> in the former communist bloc, he has given almost nothing to Jewish causes.
> In this week�s article, however, he stated � apparently for the first
> time � that he has �a great deal of sympathy for my fellow Jews and a
> deep concern for the survival of Israel.�
> He said that while he has disagreed with Israeli policies in the past, he has
> kept quiet because he �did not want to provide fodder to the enemies of
> Israel.� However, he said, the mishandling of recent events by Washington
> and Jerusalem now demanded greater public debate, which he said was stifled
> by groups like Aipac.
> He also sprang to the defense of his fellow Jewish liberals, criticizing a
> recent essay on �Progressive Jewish Thought,� written by Indiana
> University historian Alvin Rosenfeld and published by the American Jewish
> Committee, for its attack on critics of Israel.
> Soros wrote that he is �not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be
> involved in the reform of Aipac� and called on the American Jewish
> community �to rein in the organization that claims to represent it.�
> A spokesperson for Aipac said the group will not comment on Soros�s remarks.
> An argument echoing Soros�s was posted a day later on the popular Web site
> Salon, in an article titled �Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?�
> The writer, Gary Kamiya, called on American Jews to �stand up and say
> �not in my name�,� and to challenge the notion that Aipac�s views are
> representative of the broader Jewish community.
> Less pointed, but far more widely circulated, was a critique of American
> policymaking published Sunday by New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas
> Kristof. The much-decorated journalist, famous for his determined coverage of
> the Darfur genocide, argued that American politicians have �muzzled
> themselves� when it comes to Israel and that �there is no serious
> political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy
> toward Israelis and Palestinians.�
> Both Kristof and Soros compared America�s Middle East policy discussion
> unfavorably with the lively debate in Israel over the government�s policy.
> Both claimed that while Israelis feel free to criticize their government and
> question its policies, American politicians are afraid to take it on.
> The Economist, the internationally respected British newsweekly, summed up
> Friday in a prescient article the �changing climate� facing the
> pro-Israel lobby. It mentioned challenges to Aipac from Arab Americans,
> liberal Jews and foreign-policy experts worried about America�s standing in
> the Arab world. �America needs an open debate about its role in the Middle
> East and Aipac needs to take a positive role in this debate if it is to
> remain such a mighty force in American politics,� the article concluded.
> This burst of criticism against the Israel lobby and its role in the shaping
> of American policy toward Israel was immediately met by critical articles
> from supporters of Aipac and of America�s pro-Israel policies.
> A Monday editorial in the New York Sun was the harshest of all. It compared
> Soros�s and Kristof�s criticisms to the so-called blood libels directed
> against Jews in medieval Europe. �The fact is that they write at a time
> when a war against the Jews is underway,� the Sun wrote. �It is a war in
> which the American people have stood with Israel for three generations� The
> reason is that Americans are wise enough to understand which side in the war
> against the Jews shares our values � and to sort out the truth from the
> libels.�
> You're damned straight.
> And the first libel they're bound to figure out is the libel that people who
> condemn israel condemn Jews for no reason - it's a lie.
> Our problem is not with Jews per se, but with the political ideology that
> insists that they can kill with impunity to maintain a so-called "purely
> Jewish state," even though many - if not most - of the so-called "Jews" who
> live there are neither semitic nor do they believe in God.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get your own web address.
> Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
>
