Criticism of Israel Not Kosher!


“The cover was not intended to be anti-Semitic; the New Statesman is vigorously opposed to racism in all its forms,” said Editor Peter Wilby in his grovelling apology.  Although Wilby promised not to self-censor, the material below is no longer on the magazine’s web site.
Big Jewry, like big tobacco, is seen as one of life’s givens.
Free speech died when criticism of Israel was banned.
In the UK, criticism of Israel has been banned since “The New Statesman” published this tepid attack back in Feb. 2002 and then abjectly retracted.  
 Zionism is not about a Jewish national homeland. That’s to trick Jews into supporting Israel. 
Jerusalem is destined to be capital of the Masonic-Jewish world government dictatorship (The NWO- See The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”) This is why, in the Masonic-Jewish-subjugated plantations of the West, 
criticism of Israel is no longer tolerated.(Palestinians have been deemed ineligible for “human rights,” a fate that awaits us all.)
In an attempt to be “balanced,” the offending article actually played down Zionist media meddling. But that wasn’t good enough. We’re not supposed to mention the “Kosher Conspiracy,” let alone put it on the cover!    

by Dennis Sewell
(The New Statesman)

That there is a Zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left. Big Jewry, like big tobacco, is seen as one of life’s givens.
According to this view, Israel has the British media pretty well sewn up. Wealthy Jewish business leaders, acting in concert with establishment types and co-ordinated by the Israeli embassy, have supposedly nobbled newspaper editors and proprietors, and ensured that the pro-Palestinian position is marginalized both in news reporting and on the comment pages.
As one well-known foreign affairs specialist puts it: “The sheer scale of the activity is awesome. It operates at every level. By comparison, the disparate, underfunded and shambolic pro-Palestinian organizations don’t stand a chance.”
He insists that these words remain unattributable because, he claims, “the fact is that journalists put their careers in jeopardy by speaking up for the Palestinians. That’s ultimately the Zionist lobby’s most powerful weapon.”
Nevertheless, many journalists have spoken out against the Zionist lobby over the past 12 months. Last spring, there was a spat in The Spectatorbetween Lord Black of Crossharbour, left, the magazine’s proprietor, and three well-known contributors to his newspapers.
William Dalrymple, A N Wilson and Piers Paul Read wrote a letter complaining that “under Black’s proprietorship, serious, critical reporting of Israel is no longer tolerated in the Telegraph Group”.
Conrad Black (who also owns the Jerusalem Post and is married to Barbara Amiel, the enthusiastic Zionist columnist) promptly returned fire. The troublesome trio, he alleged, illustrated “the depths of the problem of anti-Semitism in the British media”.
A few months later, Sam Kiley, a foreign correspondent for the Times, resigned after a row with his editors. Kiley had succeeded in tracking down and interviewing the Israeli soldiers who had shot dead Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy who had become, posthumously, an icon of the intifada.
Middle managers at Wapping, Kiley claims, know that Rupert Murdoch has business interests in Israel and would “fly into hysterical terror every time a pro-Israel lobbying group wrote in with a quibble”. The instruction Kiley received to file his piece “without mentioning the dead kid” was the last straw.
Just before Christmas, Deborah Orr, who writes a column for the Independent, complained that she was “fed up with being called an anti-Semite”. A tendency to equate anti-Zionism – indeed, any criticism of Israel – with anti-Semitism is a persistent vice of Zionist campaigners.
Time was when the worst a commentator could expect if he or she had written critically about Israel was a telephone call from the publisher Lord (George) Weidenfeld, registering his anguish and disappointment.
Weidenfeld,left, at one time chef de cabinet to Israel’s founding president, Chaim Weizmann, was and remains a serious operator at the level of government, editors and media proprietors.
His name figures in ministerial diaries published by the Foreign Office (breakfast 8 am with Peter Hain and so on), but his media interventions have always been discreet. Today, however, critics of Israeli policy are guaranteed to receive thousands of vituperative letters and e-mails.
These correspondents take their cue from organizations such as the Zionist Federation’s Media Response Unit, run by the former Labour MP for Basildon Eric Moonman; or from the web-based, set up by two students at the University of London who felt that Israel was getting a bum deal in the press.
Robert Fisk, Orr’s colleague at the Independent, complains that he has been the victim of an anonymous smear campaign seeking to link him with the notoriously anti-Semitic historian David Irving.
Another frequent target is Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian, who was named Journalist of the Year at Granada’s What the Papers Say Awards last month for her “dedication to truthful reporting”. She has been bombarded with insulting mail, some of it denouncing her as a “self-hating Jew”.
But however vile these letter-writing campaigns may be for the journalists concerned, is there the slightest evidence that they affect what appears in the press? When one looks at the array of pro-Israel organizations in Britain, one is struck not by their cohesion so much as their fragmentation. Few (including Bicom) are much more than a two-men-and-a-dog operation located above a shop, or out in cyberspace.
The only Jewish stereotype they reinforce is the one portrayed in Woody Allen films, where a dozen members of a family sit around the dinner table, all shouting different things at the same time. Some clearly believe that Ariel Sharon can do no wrong, others that he can do no good. In this, they reflect the pluralist cast of Israel’s polity. And that Israel is the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East is something they constantly invite the rest of us to remember.
Bicom deals directly with the press, arranging visits and “interview opportunities”. It does not, it says, directly pressurize individual journalists even when it believes they write untruths.
Recently, the organization tried to hire Tim Luckhurst, a former editor of the Scotsman, to sharpen its techniques. Luckhurst, a non-Jew who is broadly sympathetic to Israel’s dilemmas, was tempted, but eventually turned the organization down, preferring to continue the struggle under his own byline.
The task of making formal complaints about supposed media misrepresentations increasingly falls to theBoard of Deputies of British Jews, a solemn, rather bureaucratic organization. Its remonstrations are hardly strong-arm stuff; their register always more in sorrow than in anger.
The board has turned to another non-Jew to put its case, the Scottish National Party activist Fiona Macaulay, recruited in July from the Scottish Parliament.
A steelier edge to perception management is provided by the Israeli embassy in the form of its press attache, David “DJ” Schneeweiss. The pro-Palestinian camp credits DJ, an Australian who emigrated to Israel 15 years ago, with almost supernatural powers.
Allegedly, he can be on the phone to every news editor at once, while simultaneously schmoozing their proprietors. His opponents accuse him of peddling the “big lies” of Israeli propaganda, such as the line that the Palestinians deliberately put their children up front to draw Israeli sniper fire, hoping a few infant deaths will help the cause.
But most journalists who have been fed that line source it from Jerusalem. DJ is more of a close textual analyst, pointing out that when Hamas uses the phrase “end the occupation” in a communique, it does not mean, as the PLO does, the occupation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza; it means the end of the existence of Israel.
The campaign against Goldenberg nicely illustrates the perils of crude lobbying. Last June, after months of being pestered by Zionist organizations, Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, traveled to Israel and the occupied territories to judge the situation for himself. Shortly afterwards, he sent his foreign editor on a similar fact-finding mission. The result has been that Israeli policies have been brought into sharper critical focus in the Guardian than ever before.
Hardly the outcome the Zionist lobby desired. Nor has Simon Kelner, the editor of the Independent, muzzled Robert Fisk, despite an attempt by the Israeli embassy to persuade him to do so. In fact, given that Black and Murdoch need no nobbling, it is hard to find an instance where any senior figure in the media has been successfully nobbled in recent years.
Read the liberal press almost any day of the week, and you will find that Israel comes off worst. Many younger correspondents appear to have forgotten that the UN was instrumental in bringing Israel into existence; that the Israelis have had to fight off three invasions from neighboring Arab states; and that UN Resolution 242 is a more nuanced document than the reflexive attachment of the epithet “illegal” to the occupation of the West Bank suggests.
Palestinian acceptance of Israel’s right to exist behind secure borders is often reported uncritically, sometimes implying that this position is shared by Hamas. And a creeping cultural and moral relativism holds Israel to account for every action and reaction, while excusing Palestinian excesses on the grounds of poverty and a general victim status.
I could go on, but only at the risk of being thought to have been nobbled myself. The truth is that the “Zionist lobby” does exist, but is a clueless bunch.

Related – Makow – The Jewish Conspiracy – Last Moment of Lucidity 
You Tube Anti-Semitism, a trick we always use”  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *