Bush Administration legitimizes Arab anti-Semitism in Annapolis

"Apartheid, Not Peace' by Caroline Glick in JPost

This week the Bush Administration legitimized Arab anti-Semitism. In an effort to please the Saudis and their Arab brothers, the Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.

Evident everywhere, the discrimination against Israel received its starkest expression at the main assembly of the Annapolis conference on Tuesday. There, in accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs.

At the meeting of foreign ministers on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called her Arab counterparts to task for their discriminatory treatment. "Why doesn't anyone want to shake my hand? Why doesn't anyone want to be seen speaking to me?" she asked pointedly.

Israel's humiliated foreign minister did not receive support from her American counterpart. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who spent her childhood years in the segregated American South, sided with the Arabs. Although polite enough to note that she doesn't support the slaughter of Israelis, she made no bones about the fact that her true sympathies lie with the racist Arabs.

As she put it, "I know what it is like to hear that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are a Palestinian. I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness."

Rice's remarks make clear that for the Secretary of State there is no difference between Israelis trying to defend themselves from a jihadist Palestinian society which supports the destruction of the Jewish state and bigoted white Southerners who oppressed African Americans because of the color of their skin. It is true that Israel has security concerns, but as far as Rice is concerned, the Palestinians are the innocent victims. They are the ones who are discriminated against and humiliated, not Livni, who was forced - by Rice - to enter the conference through the service entrance.

OneJerusalem provides this commentary:


The Bush administration's tolerance for discrimination against Israel was not merely ceremonial. Diplomatically, the conference was equally prejudicial. At Annapolis, the US joined the Arabs in placing the lion's share of blame for the absence of peace between Israel and the Palestinians on Israel. But you wouldn't know that from listening to Olmert, who is working steadily to hide what happened there.

Olmert obfuscates the truth because his political stability rests in the hands of his hawkish coalition partners Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas. Both warned before the summit that if Olmert made any concessions on either Jerusalem or the so-called outpost communities in Judea and Samaria they would bolt his coalition and so spur new elections.

Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the summit. Both Shas leader Eli Yishai and Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman dismissed Annapolis as a pathetic joke and claimed that there is no reason for them to resign from the Olmert government. But these assertions are deliberately misleading.

The fact that the Israeli-PLO joint statement made no specific mention of Jerusalem, and that the government didn't announce a timetable for destroying the so-called outpost communities and expelling the hundreds of Israeli families who live in them, doesn't mean that Israel made no concessions on these issues. In fact, the Olmert government made massive concessions on these issues.

The Israel-PLO joint statement at Annapolis contains a joint pledge "to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis."

Although Olmert, Lieberman and Yishai dismiss this Israeli acceptance of moral equivalence with Palestinian jihadists as a meaningless rhetorical concession, the government's move is rife with political and legal implications. US Ambassador Richard Jones's unprecedented meeting this week with Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch made clear that the US demands that Israeli courts interpret Israeli law in a prejudicial manner in order to demonize Israeli opponents of Palestinian statehood and the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Their meeting also signaled that the US expects Israel to treat lawful building activities by Jews in Judea and Samaria and even in sections of Jerusalem as criminal acts. Since the Olmert government accepts that Israel is morally indistinguishable from the Palestinian Authority, it is hard to foresee it preventing the criminalization of its political opponents. From now on, Israelis who oppose the diplomatic moves of the Olmert government can expect to be treated as the moral equivalents of Palestinian terrorists.

Holocaust Suvivors Protest Annapolis; Warn Vilifying Jews Revived by Muslims & Left as Demogogic Ploy for Tyranny

Don't try to make Israel your Czechoslovakia, President Bush and Secy Rice.

Holocaust survivor, Mr. Paul Schnek, protests Bush Administration pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert whose capitulation to reward Jihadist terror with Israeli surrender of land and communities for the establishment of a hostile, Muslim, Palestinian state alongside Israel imperils the West against the Jihad.

Filmed at contra- Annapolis Conference protest outside Israeli Embassy in NYC, organized by Eva Costabel and Buddy Macy.

Mrs. Costabel warns against those, like Arabs and James Baker, who use Jews as scapegoats to manipulate power.

Survivor, Mrs. Costabel, warns Christians not to trust those (like the Nazis and Islamists) that scapegoat the Jewish people (civilization's canary in the coalmine) to implement tyranny. The Nazi's used anti-Judaism to rise to power, which enabled them to kill more than 50 million Christians.


She warns Westerners that Islamists resent Israel as the only modern democracy in the Middle East (which runs against the grain of the Muslim socio-political system of theocracy) which Saudis preach must dominate anywhere Muslims live - including throughout the West.

American Annapolis protestors: 'Coercing Israeli concessions to Jihadist enemies endangers world to emboldened Jihad'

Bred to conquer the Jewish state for Jihad for Allah (i.e., global Islamic conquest), Palestine has proven unfit in fulfilling peace commitments, claim Americans protesting the Annapolis Summit. While some argue that Israel surrendering communities would facilitate a less hostile Hamas, others condemn Washington putting Israel under duress to surrender vital strategic attributes towards continued exploitation by the global Islamist movement.

One of the protest's organizers, Bob Kunst of Shalom International, accuses Bush of hypocracy by violating his own policy to ostracize entities who aid and give comfort to terrorism, as attendees Abbas's Fatah party, Syria, and Saudia Arabia have been accused of. Peace-niks argue that Jewish concessions will appease the crocodile.

More than 100 Jewish-Americans demonstrate outside Annapolis peace summit

Israel's Legitimacy Explained in "The Modern Lie"

From TV's The Hal Lindsey Show:

The Americans Never Looked So Hostile as Annapolis

Caroline Glick writes in The Jerusalem Post :

The mood is dark in the IDF's General Staff ahead of this week's "peace" conference in Annapolis. As one senior officer directly involved in the negotiations with the Palestinians and the Americans said, "As bad as it might look from the outside, the truth is 10 times worse. This is a nightmare. The Americans have never been so hostile." Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal confers with Secy Condoleeza Rice

On Thursday a draft of the joint statement that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are discussing ahead of the conference was leaked to the media. A reading of the document bears out the IDF's concerns.

The draft document shows that the Palestinians and the Israelis differ not only on every issue, but differ on the purpose of the document. It also shows that the US firmly backs the Palestinians against Israel.

As the leaked draft document shows, the Americans have sided with the Palestinians against Israel. Specifically, the Americans have taken for themselves the sole right to judge whether or not the Palestinians and the Israelis are abiding by their commitments and whether and at what pace the negotiations will proceed.

But the Americans have shown themselves to be unworthy of Israel’s trust. By refusing to acknowledge Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party’s direct involvement in terrorism and indeed the direct involvement of his official Fatah “security forces” in terrorism, the Americans have shown that their benchmarks for Palestinian compliance with their commitments to Israel are not necessarily based on the reality on the ground. Then too, the US demands for wide-ranging Israeli security concessions to the Palestinians even before the “peace” conference at Annapolis have shown that Israel’s security is of little concern to the State Department.

IDF sources blame the shooting murder of Ido Zoldan on Monday night by Fatah terrorists on Israel’s decision to bow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s demand to take down 24 security roadblocks in Judea and Samaria. If it hadn’t been for US pressure, they say, it is quite possible that the 29-year-old father of two small children would be alive today.

Read it all.

Bias Against Israel Revealed in Study of NY Times

From media watchdog, HonestReporting: Not all cases of slanted reporting are instantly clear. It's often helpful to take a step back and examine a news organization over a long-term period. Subtle elements of bias such as headline or photo selection then become clearer. In our second in-depth media analysis, we studied six months of reporting from the New York Times, one of the most popular and influential newspapers in the world.

The New York Times: April-September 2007 - Summary of Findings:

Balance: Despite an evenly balanced selection of stories on Israel and the Palestinians, the New York Times gave far more weight to Israeli military incidents in text location, headlines and photo selection than to Palestinian attacks. More than 60% of images sympathetic to one side or the other favored the Palestinians.

Consistency: Israeli and Palestinian actions were not treated consistently in choice of language. Israel or the Israel Defense Forces were the subject of strongly worded, direct headlines in 18 out of 20 cases (90%). However, in the 20 cases where the Palestinians were responsible for attacks, the language was mostly passive and the group responsible was only named in eight instances (40%).

Context and Accuracy: Inaccurate statements or important context that would give readers a fuller picture of news events was often omitted. Terms such as "militants", "occupied territory," and "illegal settlements" were used without providing a proper explanation.

Islamists Build Global Propaganda Facility on Jewish Ruins

While Palestinian civil-servants work unsalaried, Palestinians construct a $50-million Media City upon the ruins of Jewish Gaza to maximize international press demonization of Israel and Jewish people.

Variety.com reports that Middle-East Broadcasting Center (MBC) Group's founder and chairman Saudi Sheik Waleed al Ibrahim (publisher of al-Arabiya news channel) announced he is expanding his media empire to develop films and new channels.

The prospect of Saudi Arabia opening up itself from an entertainment industry standpoint may also have a huge bearing on the ultimate success of MBC's film venture. Officials in the conservative Kingdom are prepping new media laws set to liberalize the biz there and work is also well under way on the King Abdullah Economic City, which may well include a media zone that could challenge the supremacy of Dubai's media city. Talk has also been rife for months that the Saudi royal family is finally planning to lift the three-decade-long ban on cinemas.

"It's a matter of laws and regulations," says bin Ibrahim. "It's being talked about openly in the papers. It is just a matter of time. It will be a very big market and will change the piracy here."

Next year should also bring the launching of more MBC channels.

With the Arab TV market nearing saturation point -- with more than 250 free-to-air satcasters, in addition to payboxes Showtime Arabia, Orbit and ART -- MBC execs are going local, with a number of terrestrial offerings under evaluation. "We're looking at launching specific channels in specific regions, whether that be in North Africa, the Palestinian territories or Kuwait," says bin Ibrahim. "They would have a lot of MBC content but really be geared terrestrially and focus on a local market where you can then utilize our content but get local advertising and local ratings."

Hamas Demonstrates Palestinian State Civility Against Rice/Olmert-Supported Fatah

As the State Department Secretary, Condoleeza Rice, brings the world to Annapolis to pressure Israel to boost Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party's image, the predominant Hamas government shows the nature of the brutality which can be expected under Palestinian statehood. Contributor Boni123 has aggregated and translated this news story from Israeli TV News into English. Watch clip:

British broadcaster vindicated over "Undercover Mosque" documentary

"Ofcom rejects 'perverse' police complaints about C4 expose of Muslim extremists"-
UK Daily Mail
Watch scenes from the documentary program, "Undercover Mosque":



Media watchdog Ofcom has rejected complaints by West Midlands Police about a Channel 4 undercover programme that exposed extremism in British mosques.

The programme, called Undercover Mosque, was part of its current affairs Dispatches series and was broadcast in January. It featured TV footage of an Islamic preacher praising the death of a British soldier.

Police claimed that the programme had misrepresented the views of Muslim preachers and clerics with misleading editing.

Following the ruling, the broadcaster called the police's actions "perverse" and said they had, in some people's eyes, given "legitimacy to people preaching a message of hate."

Ofcom said: "Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest.

"Ofcom found no evidence that the broadcaster had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity."

"On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context."

The programme featured undercover recordings from speakers alleged to be homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist and condemnatory of non-Muslims.

Comments by imams in the film were: "Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain", "those whom the wrath of Allah is upon, is the Jew and the Christian", and "it takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man".

Did anti-Semitism drive France2-TV to broadcast known, faked video to vilify Israel? Did it backfire to fuel the fires and Jihad attacking Europe?

Melanie Phillips' coverage of the "27 minutes of hitherto unseen footage of the ‘killing’ of Mohammed al Durah which the court had required France 2 to produce. For readers who are unfamiliar with this scandal, I wrote about it here, here and here.
Suffice it to say here that the iconic image of the child Mohammed al Durah, pictured crouching with his father behind a barrel next to a concrete wall in an apparently vain attempt to shelter from the gun-battle between Israel and the Palestinians that was raging around them before he was allegedly shot dead by the Israelis, served to incite terrorist violence and atrocities around the world after it was transmitted by France 2 at the beginning of the second intifada. Yet it is clear to anyone looking at this in detail that the whole thing was staged, not least from the devastating evidence here which shows the boy raising his arm and peeping through his fingers seconds after the France 2 correspondent Charles Enderlin said he had been shot dead.

After Philippe Karsenty, founder of the French online media watchdog, Media Ratings, accused France 2 of staging the al Durah ‘killing’ and called for the resignation of both Charles Enderlin and France 2’s News Director, Arlette Chabot, France 2 and Enderlin sued Karsenty for defamation, and won. In a disgraceful piece of judicial cronyism after the gratuitous intervention of the then French President Jacques Chirac, the court decided against Karsenty and in favour of France 2 and Enderlin. Karsenty appealed; the judge ordered France 2 to produce the unscreened footage of this incident; today it did so.

Well, sort of. What it actually produced was 18 minutes out of the 27 it was required to bring forward. From this footage, which according to France 2’s Palestinian cameraman was filmed during an implausible 45 minutes of continuous shooting by Israeli soldiers, there is no evidence that anyone at all was killed or injured -- including Mohammed al Durah who by the end of the frames in which he figured seemed to be still very much alive and unmarked by any wound whatsoever.

The drama of today’s hearing was enhanced by the appearance of Enderlin himself, who until today had not graced this case with his presence. As the film was shown to a packed and overheated (in every sense) courtroom, Enderlin and Karsenty offered rival interpretations of the images on the screen. If Enderlin thought he would thus demonstrate the inadequacy of Karsenty’s case, he was very much mistaken. On the contrary, parts of his commentary were so absurd that the courtroom several times burst into incredulous laughter.

Enderlin offered only a vague, rambling and unconvincing explanation of why he had only produced 18 minutes of footage rather than the 27 he claimed to have received from his cameraman in Gaza (Enderlin himself was not in Gaza when these events occurred). After the hearing Professor Richard Landes, one of the people who had already seen the contested footage, said that two scenes had been cut out which clearly showed that the violence had been staged -- including one in which a Palestinian preparing to throw a missile is suddenly picked up and carried into an ambulance despite showing no signs of injury. This scene, said Landes, was filmed by Reuters, who actually filmed the France 2 cameraman filming it. Yet there was no sign of it today.

What struck me very forcibly about the 18 minutes overall was that, although this was supposed to have been filmed during continuous firing by the Israelis for 45 minutes, much of the footage consisted merely of a violent demonstration by stone throwing youths, many of whom who appeared to be enjoying the exercise. One child was pictured riding a bicycle through the melee. There was no evidence of any of them being killed or injured. From time to time, to be sure, youths were dragged onto stretchers and into ambulances – but there was no sign of anyone actually being shot, no-one falling under fire, no sign of any blood or injuries whatever. The nearest it got to an injury was a sequence in which a young man coyly pulled his shirt open a little to provide a glimpse of a neat red circle on his stomach, which he claimed was a (rubber?) bullet wound. But since he appeared to be in no pain whatever and was grinning throughout his turn for the camera, this seemed an eminently implausible way for someone who had just been hit by gunfire to behave.

There were many very strange things about this footage which just didn’t add up. When it came to the footage of the ‘killing’ of Mohammed al Durah, the following stood out:

* This sequence was not a continuous narrative but was repeatedly broken up and spliced onto footage of other scenes from the demonstration;

* Although the France 2 cameraman had told a German film-maker, Esther Schapira, that he had filmed six minutes of the al Durah father and son under continuous Israeli fire, the footage of them lasted for less than one minute;

* There was a camera tripod next to them;

* There was no evidence of the boy actually being hit;

* At one point, people in the crowd cried out that the boy was dead, while he was sitting up large as life clinging onto his father with his mouth wide open;

* After he was said to be dead, he moved his arm (the sequence I have already reported which has been available on the web for years).

The Appeal Court is not due to give its verdict in this case until next February. As of today, such are the fresh contradictions and questions thrown up by the showing of this footage it would seem that France 2 has painted itself into a corner from which it will find it increasingly hard to escape.

But this scandal goes far beyond France 2. Soon after it transmitted the 55 seconds which showed the ‘killing’ of Mohammed al Durah, it helpfully sent various news agencies three minutes of the footage of this incident – including the frames in which the ‘dead’ child is seen moving, but which of course it had not broadcast. For reasons which invite speculation, not one of these agencies broadcast it either. Had they done so, there would have been no ‘killing’ of Mohammed al Durah and untold numbers of subsequent deaths would have been avoided.

It is therefore not surprising, but no less shocking, that with a couple of heroic exceptions the mainstream media has until very recently ignored the evidence suggesting that a monumental and deadly fraud was perpetrated here, indicators which have been around for years. As of today, the Karsenty case has been totally ignored by the mainstream French media.

It is also deeply troubling that the Israel government ignored this evidence for seven years, that it is only very recently that its press spokesman Danny Seaman said the incident was staged, and that even now certain representatives of the Israel government are playing a most ambiguous role in defending their country against this modern, blood libel.

The ‘killing’ of Mohammed al Durah was swallowed uncritically by the western media, despite the manifold unlikeliness and contradictions which were apparent from the start, because it accorded with the murderous prejudice against Israel which is the prism through which the Middle East conflict is habitually refracted. This scandal has the most profound implications not just for the media, not just for the Middle East conflict but for the western world’s relationship to reason, which seems to grow more tenuous by the day.

Prof. Landes and Philippe Karsenty spoke outside the courtroom about the video evidence presented and omitted which confirm "the al-Dura hoax."

Boston University Professor Richard Landes, who has viewed all the original footage of the alleged shooting that day, attended France2 TV News' Charles Enderlin's subpoenaed evidence footage. Coverage from Augean Stables:

"Then we viewed the rushes with a preamble and running commentary by Enderlin, with comments by Karsenty. It was something of a circus. But it did give me an insight into how Enderlin’s mind works. He explained about Sharon’s provocative visit to the Temple Mount on the 28th, and the riots that ensued on the 29th in the West Bank, and how everyone expected the rioting to spread to Gaza the next day, “because that’s how it works.”

And sure enough, when we see the tapes, we see scene after scene of people being evacuated into ambulances. We don’t see them hit, we don’t see their injuries, but we do see them taken to ambulances, and Enderlin explains: “The Israelis are firing with rubber bullets.” Now there’s no evidence that the Israelis are firing. But because Enderlin expects violence, when he sees Palestinians evacuated in ambulances, he concludes that they have been shot by Israelis.

Most of the material was inconclusive or boring, and I patiently waited for the material I’d seen. Then, at about 15 minutes on the time code, Enderlin announces that there will be a break and we will see the final scenes. That’s when I knew he had cut the scenes. Sure enough, the screen went blank, and then began the final three minutes...

Now there are at least two scenes that I remember specifically, one of which we have documented by Reuters. One scene that wasn’t there I described as follows:

At another point, a boy faked a leg injury, but instead of drawing big kids who could pick him up and rush him past the cameramen to an ambulance, he only attracted little kids. He shooed them away, looked around, and, seeing that no one was coming to evacuate him, straightened up and walked away without a limp.

Indeed this scene provoked a snort from the Israeli cameraman working for France2 who was watching the film with me and Enderlin at the time.

When I asked him why, he said, “because it looks so fake.”

“That’s my impression as well,” I responded.

Enderlin commented, “Oh, they do that all the time. It’s their cultural style. They exaggerate.”

“But if they do it all the time, why couldn’t they have staged Al Durah?” I asked.

“Oh, they’re not good enough.”

Now ultimately, this is my (B.U. Prof. Richard Landes') word (and possibly, if they remember and have the courage to come forward, those of Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte), against Enderlin.

But the second piece I remember is actually documented by Reuters (video sequence).

Past photographers, among whom we find Talal abu Rahmah, with his France2 equipment.

Talal is in close, for maximum effect. Note the fellow on the far left who’s in for the ride. He’s seen smiling in the video.

And then run back right in front of the Israeli position (where he was presumably shot) and loaded on the ambulance right in front of the Israelis.

Israeli position in the background. No one is afraid of being hit by them.

Pajamas Media Parisian blogger Nidra Poller provides eyewitness commentary to fill in the blanks of Prof. Landes' participation in viewing France2 TV News' Charles Enderlin's subpoenaed 'master' b-roll video evidence presentation at the trial:

"Reading an excerpt from the cameraman’s testimony under oath—”I filmed 27 minutes of the incident that lasted 45 minutes—” the judge asks why there are only 18 minutes on the CD. The seasoned France 2 journalist gives a garbled excuse...

So how did the 27 minutes boil down to 18? Enderlin denies that anyone ever said there were 27 minutes… and then says there was some irrelevant material that he chopped off the day after the incident.

The judge presses the point, asking Rosenzweig and Landes to estimate the duration of the footage they viewed. They both attest to more than 20 minutes… Rosenzweig remembers someone mentioning 27. Karsenty’s lawyer concludes for the record: something is missing.

The raw footage was not so raw. And it was barely al Dura. If we take the cameraman’s word for it, given under oath a few days after the incident, not something but everything is missing. This is supposed to be the raw footage of the al Dura death scene. What we get is raw footage of Palestinian youths throwing stones, firebombs, and burning tires at the Israeli outpost. And provoking no reaction, except for one teargas bomb. Real provocations alternate with those familiar fake battle scenes with instantaneous ambulance evacuations...

As Charles Enderlin switched on his anchorman’s voice and stonewalled, his legal team—Maître Amblard, who has been handling the cases for the past year, reinforced by a tall dashing Maître Pierre Olivier Sur and the scowling Guillaume Weill-Raynal— stood squarely in front of Landes and Rosenzweig, blocking their view of the screen...

Suddenly everything is confused. The timeline skips from 14’20 to 17’00. We see the beginning of the al Dura news report as it was broadcast. The avocat général fiddles with the controls, the image winds back, forward. We’re back at the interview. The commentary is confused. Is Charles Enderlin saying the fire was coming from the Palestinian positions?

Finally—it’s not clear how—we get to the al Dura footage. And all we see is what you got in the original September 30, 2000 broadcast. It’s spliced. But we recognize the details. Karsenty interrupts every few seconds to point out the anomalies. No blood. The boy is holding a red kerchief to make it look like blood. The soldiers were supposed to be firing at them for 45 minutes, the wall is intact, there are a few holes. Round holes, shot head on.

Charles Enderlin and Talal Abu Rahma have consistently claimed that the Israeli position was directly opposite the targeted man and boy. It is not true. Enderlin stands in front of the judge and says everything and the opposite about the positions. He does not reply to a single objection raised by Karsenty, raised by other analysts repeatedly over the past seven years: The father’s arm is intact, he claims he was hit nine times by high power bullets, his muscles smashed, his bones crushed. No blood on his white t-shirt. Voices in Arabic shout “the boy is dead! the boy is dead!” He is sitting next to his father, eyes wide open.

Charles Enderlin standing in a French court explains: Oh, that’s something cultural. In their culture, when they say “the boy is dead” they mean he is in danger of dying, that he is in a very dangerous situation, he might die. The judges smile.

We reach the end of the scene as it figured in news reports, the point where Charles Enderlin said, “Mohamed is dead, his father is critically wounded.” We might ask what that means in his culture…because the scene continues for another three seconds in which we see the boy who is lying on his stomach with his hands over his eyes, turn, lift his elbow, shade his eyes, look at the camera, and slowly return to his prone position.

Philippe Karsenty interrupts every few seconds, leaps up, points to the screen, asks for a slow forward, backward, forward. The boy is moving. He is alive."

How to Free America of Dependency on Hostile, Foreign Oil Influence - Dr. Gal Luft and Edwin Black honored by A.J.C.

America has been railroaded by pro-Oil commercial interests into dependency on hostile countries for our energy needs. The American Jewish Congress featured Edwin Black (author of "Internal Combustion") who explains how it happened.

 

Mr. Black is joined by co-honoree, Dr. Gal Luft (Executive Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security) in providing solutions. Dr. Gal Luft writes: "The shift from oil will bring about significant geopolitical changes and could reshape America's strategic landscape in a way more conducive to prosperity and global security. Shifting to next-generation fuels will allow more countries to generate growing portions of their energy needs domestically. The U.S. and its allies will no longer be forced to fight oil wars in the Middle East or be subjected to supply disruptions and price manipulations as during the 1970s-1980s. Above all, a shift from oil is the best weapon against America's enemies, who derive their power from oil and use it to fuel terror and spread hatred toward our nation.

 

Moving beyond oil could be our best economic stimulus. Every industrial and technological revolution in history brought with it an economic boom. The energy revolution will likely do the same. Building an infrastructure for mass production of next-generation cars and fuels would generate millions of jobs around the world, and revitalize the automobile industry as well as other related industries."

Palestinian Public's Expectations for Annapolis - Khaled abu Toameh on Canadian Public TV

A candid, Palestinian perspective on the prospects for progress from the upcoming Annapolis Mid-East Peace Conference. Palestinian affairs analyst for The Jerusalem Post, Khaled abu Toameh, appeared on TV Ontario's "The Agenda with Steve Paiken" in October. Click to watch.

Feeding the Crocodile - Predictions Verified on 2nd Anniversary

Second-anniversary of this prescient interview in which we forewarned against the misguidedness of international pressure on Israel to concede Gaza's Jewish communities to the Palestinian Authority towards peace-making reciprocal concessions. It did backfire, as we predicted, by fanning the flames of the global Jihad movement and increasing Gazan Islamists' attacks on Israeli civilians.

The P.A. demonstrated its priority of destroying Israel over providing adequate civic services. Hamas murderously defeated Fatah and gained control over Gaza.

This clip features scenes from Israeli Member of Knesset, Rabbi Benny Elon's "The Right Road to Peace" movement's documentary, "A Stab in the Heart."




Broadcast clip courtesy Inspiration Network's "Danny Fontana Show".

'Islam Justifies our Extortion and Murder of Christians & Jews'- Apartheid Palestine

Palestinian-incited persecution of Christians and Jews bodes ill for Secy Rice's mandated Palestinian independence. An example of life for secularists, reform Muslims, and non-Muslims under Islamist societies.



2 videos from Christian World News, courtesy of Ritter1001.

Caroline Glick discusses the treatment of Jews in non-Jewish areas of Israel (in the Jerusalem Post) in her column: Our World: Israel's anti-Zionist leaders.

From October 26-30, a mob of Druse villagers in Peki'in in the Galilee launched what has all the markings of a pogrom against the four Jewish families in the village. They burned their cars and surrounded and torched their homes.

The police took a full day to come to the Jews' defense. And when they did, the Druse mob kidnapped a policewoman and only set her free in exchange for their cohorts who had been arrested. The police then set about evacuating the Jews from their encircled homes and did nothing to prevent their homes from being destroyed by the mob. ... Read full article.

Antisemitism: Historic Tool Towards Tyranny

In the Washington Post, author Ruth Wisse ("Jews and Power") responds to the 1 in 6 Americans (exposed in a recent ADL survey) who feel that Jews have too much power in the U.S. (an opinion shared by over half of Europeans surveyed).

"We are all Jews now," former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr. said after the September 2001 attacks. "We should all reflect upon the historic reality that when anti-Semitism raises its head, the rest of us, unless we are willing to live with a foot on our necks, will be the next targets."

Since the days of Pharaoh, Jews have functioned as a lodestar of religious and political freedom: The Jews' attackers oppose such liberties, and their defenders promote them. The attackers have included Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, extreme nationalist parties from France to Poland, Arab autocrats trying to hold onto power and Islamist challengers trying to seize it.

This rule of thumb has less to do with Jewish actions than with those who deal in anti-Jewish politics. A small people whose foes are prone to hugely inflate their image, Jews make a handy scapegoat for dictators.

Here is a 5-minute reminder of the products of your complacency towards antisemitism. The horror of the Nazi concentration camps were documented by the British Army in this film, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and restricted from U.S. public showing until recent broadcast on PBS' "Frontline" series.



In its August meetings, according to the Hudson Institute, the "revamped" U.N. Human Rights Council directed three-quarters of its indictments of individual states against Israel -- but just 2 percent against the thuggish regime running Burma.

I understand why some Jews and Israelis try to escape this assault through assimilation or denial, or even by joining their assailants. It's seductive to hope that by accommodating our enemies, we will be allowed to live in peace. But the strategy of accommodation that historically turned Jews into a no-fail target is the course least likely to stop ongoing acts of aggression against them. Indeed, anti-Jewish politics will end only when those who practice it accept the democratic values of religious pluralism and political choice -- or are forced to pay a high enough price for flouting them."

(The entire 53-minute film is viewable at Atlas Shrugs).

Sinatra Sings Against Hate in "The House I Live In"

"The House I Live In" was a 1945 short (10 min) film written by Albert Maltz, produced by Frank Ross and stared Frank Sinatra to oppose anti-Semitism and prejudice at the end of World War II. It received a special Academy Award in 1946.
(Public domain film with Creative Commons Lic.) Music by Earl Robinson
Lyrics by Lewis Allen

DemoCast News Voted 6th Best Video Blog in Annual, Global Weblog Awards

Democracy Broadcasting News has been selected as Finalist by the 2007 Weblog Awards - and finished in 6th (out of 10 places) in the category of "Best Video Blog" across the global web.

Congratulations to all of the other finalists.

PBS Telecasts Israel's Sacrifice of Jewish Gaza - Tonight

"Storm of Emotions," a documentary showing Israel's sacrificing Jewish communities to receive peace from the Palestinians will air on PBS' "Independent Lens" tonight.

In 2005, Israeli police faced the most complicated assignment of their careers—to evacuate other Israelis from the Gaza Strip, perhaps the most contested piece of land in the world. Told from the perspective of the Israeli police force, STORM OF EMOTIONS explores how individuals try to balance their emotions, beliefs and conscience while attempting to maintain civil order.

STORM OF EMOTIONS premieres Tuesday, October 30 on Independent Lens, a weekly series airing on PBS. Hosted by Terrence Howard, the acclaimed series showcases powerful and innovative independent films. Presented by ITVS, Independent Lens is broadcast on PBS stations nationwide.

Los Angeles Airtime: Thurs, Nov 1st, 9-10:30pm KCET-TV