Muzzlewatch Stifles Debate on Bishop TuTu

As I was going through Jrants today to catch up on what everyone else was writing about I caught this Item on Muzzlewatch a website whose mantra is "Israel is a horrible country and every time the Jews defend themselves what they are really doing is trying to stifle debate" This particular article is called Tutu: Anatomy of a smear, the appalling double-standards of the thought police.

In the article Cecilie Surasky blasts the all the Jewish organizations that pointed out that Tutu compared Israel to Hitler she contends that these organization's leaders have used Hitler comparisons themselves and they don't have a monopoly on the use of the name Hitler. She goes on to say that the Tutu comparison was taken out of context. This is all her opinion and she has every right to give it as incorrect as it is.

Here is best part- its at the very end. What does this website that claims the Jews are trying to stifle debate have at the very end of Surasky's post:

Comments are closed

Comments are closed? Talk about stifling debate! Well Ms Surasky, since you do not let people have a debate on your site..let me point out what I agree and don't agree with on my site.

First of all, as I have pointed out on this site many times before, I think that Foxman is an ass. See I agree with you there. I do not think he represents the Jewish people (thank God).

As far as comparing someone or something to Hitler, if you are talking about how he made the trains run on time, you are right the Jews don't have a copyright on the use of Hitler. But if you comparing someone to Hitler because he killed a lot of people...well you are wrong there. WE DO own the copyright. We paid for it with more than Six Million lives, one and a half million of those were little children.

In the same vein I would never compare someone to a White Slave owner in the 19th century unless I was quoting an African American who made the comparison. Now if Tutu wanted to use the phrase Apartheid--it would be stupid-- but it his right since he lived through it.

As far as TuTu's comment on Hitler, you can explain that away if you like, but you have a lot more anti-JEWISH and anti-Israel statements to explain away also. If you don’t remember the Tutu’s record he uses almost every anti-Semitic stereotype possible, let me take this opportunity to refresh your memory with just a few examples.

People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust (Source:Monday April 29, 2002, The Guardian UK)

The Israeli daily Ha’aretz (April 29, 2002), reporting Tutu’s remarks at a recent conference in Boston, quoted him as saying: “Israel is like Hitler and apartheid”: “I’ve been deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa

Tutu accused Jews of exhibiting “an arrogance—the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby in this land and all kinds of people woo their support,”(Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin, Nov. 29, 1984)

Tutu “urged Israelis to forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust” (Jerusalem Post, Dec. 31, 1989), a statement which the Simon Wiesenthal Center called “a gratuitous insult to Jews and victims of Nazism everywhere.” During the visit, Tutu remarked, “If I’m accused of being anti-Semitic, tough luck,” and in response to questions about his anti-Jewish bias, Tutu replied, “My dentist’s name is Dr. Cohen.” (Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Response magazine, January 1990)

Speaking in a Connecticut church in 1984, Tutu said that “the Jews thought they had a monopoly on God; Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings.” In the same speech, he compared the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa. (Hartford Courant, Oct. 29, 1984)I thought that Columbia was wrong to allow the Iranian President to speak on its campus because he is a BIGOT. They would have been just as wrong to allow David Duke, Pat Buchanan,Mel Gibson or any other bigot to speak on their campus. Bishop Desmond Tutu is in that same category.

BTW all comments are welcome, as long as you use a legitimate Email address or website for replies--I do check

State Department Anti-Semitic Program: The Rest of the Story

Last week we reported that the State Department was holding a class for Middle East entrepreneurs--every body was invited except Israeli Jews See U.S. State Dept Funded "No Jews Allowed" Program Well there is more to the story apparently this program has been going on for three years...this years' funding was upwards of ten million dollars--it is a congressionally funded program, but neither congress or the state department people responsible for its implementation knew that it was a "no Jews allowed" program. As I reported last week Stewart Ain of the Jewish Week made the State Department aware of the bias A department spokeswoman at first said the program was open to all and never discriminated against Jews. But after she checked over the weekend she acknowledged that had not been the case.

The reason the bias happened in the first place is that the State Department hired an Arab Company, Amideast to handle the recruitment.

What will astound you the most as your read the story below is the lack of communication in the State Department---it is a truly scary story

Federal Program Barred Israeli Jews For Three Years

New outreach after Israeli entrepreneur blows whistle on discriminatory practice in business leadership program.

Michele Chabin - Israel Correspondent

Jerusalem — A State Department-sponsored program to promote entrepreneurship in the Middle East has been excluding Israeli Jews but accepting Arabs from 16 countries — including Israel — since its inception in 2004.

But it wasn’t until an Israeli Jewish woman complained to Israeli reporters last month that the State Department interceded with the program administrator to stop the “no Jews allowed” policy.

The Jewish woman, Miriam Schwab, owner of a small Jerusalem marketing firm, had received a Google Alert about the entrepreneurial training program. She thought it would be ideal for her until she noticed it was open only to Israeli Arabs and the residents of neighboring Arab nations.

“I was in shock,” she later said. “It seemed like blatant discrimination. How can you accept just one kind of Israeli participant and not another? After all, the money comes from the State Department.”

When her e-mails to the State Department and the program’s administrator, the Beyster Institute at the respected Rady School of Management at the University of California San Diego, went unanswered, she turned to a group of fellow freelance writers in Israel.

One of them, who contacted the Middle East Entrepreneurial Training program for clarification, received a response from Mona Yousry, an official with MEET, who wrote in an e-mail message, “The program is open only to Arab citizens of Israel.”

But hours later, Rob Fuller, director of Entrepreneur Programs at the Beyster Institute, wrote to others, saying, “I am sorry for the unfortunate misunderstanding about eligibility for the new MEET program. To be clear, for the programs for which we are now recruiting, to be held in 2008, ALL Israeli citizens are eligible to participate.”

He then said a corrected press release was being distributed.

The State Department told The Jewish Week that it had been unaware that a press release about the program — which since 2004 has received nearly $10 million — had included the restriction against Israeli Jews.

A department spokeswoman at first said the program was open to all and never discriminated against Jews. But after she checked with Fuller, she acknowledged that had not been the case.

“Apparently a mistake was made by his staff in the application [process],” she said. “They [have] corrected it.”

A source familiar with the program said that only since Schwab blew the whistle have Israeli Jews applied for the program. Perhaps one of the reasons is that the Beyster Institute had subcontracted with Amideast, a private, nonprofit organization, to handle the recruitment for MEET, recruiting 95 of the 150 persons who attended. Amideast is based in Washington and has a network of field offices in Arab countries throughout the Middle East. It says its office in Israel is in the West Bank/Gaza, which is predominantly Arab.

The Beyster Institute’s 2004 annual report pointedly stated that the only Israelis who could apply for the program were Israeli Arabs.

Since Schwab’s alert, the State Department ordered that applications be accepted from all and some Israeli Jews have applied for the program, according to David Foley, a spokesman for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department. No decisions about admission have yet been made.

To publicize the program in Israel, Foley said advertisements would be taken out in Hebrew in Israeli newspapers.

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Queens, Nassau), chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said he had understood MEET to be similar to an affirmative action program for Middle East Arabs.

“The intent of the program is to get Arabs to be entrepreneurial so they will have few problems and pay their own way and participate in the global economy,” he said. “We want to create employment for them so they don’t blow themselves up. We are competing with the Jihadi school.”

Ackerman added: “It would appear, the argument goes, that [Jewish] people in Israel proper aren’t in need of going to school to learn about entrepreneurship.”

But Schwab, whose complaint led to the change, said that when she saw the announcement about the course in the Sept. 18 online edition of Al Bawaba, a newspaper in the United Arab Emirates, she thought she could learn from it.

The paper described it as “an innovative” 10-day training program “designed to identify, develop and sustain a new core of leaders in business and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) throughout the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.”

The program — which will run three separate seminars in 2008 in Jordan, Egypt and Morocco — is sponsored by the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Office of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI).

“It looked really interesting, especially since the word ‘Israel’ came up in Google Alert,” Schwab recalled. “The ad said they were especially looking for women entrepreneurs and people involved in social activism. I run monthly business meetings for small business owners and freelancers, and I thought, ‘I’m a great candidate.’”

Then Schwab, who holds both Israeli and Canadian citizenship, read the fine print: “Applications will be accepted from citizens of the following countries and territories: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel (limited to Israeli Arab citizens), Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, West Bank/Gaza and Yemen.”

In explaining the mistake, Fuller said he had “just” received word from the State Department that “the program is now open to everyone in the MENA region.” The government, he said, “has just changed the way it funds its Middle East programs.”

When asked whether Israeli Jews had been eligible since the program’s launch in 2004, Fuller answered the question indirectly.

“When the program was started a few years ago, Israel was covered by its own congressional funding allocation, so there were already programs in place for Israeli citizens,” he said. “At the time, Israel was not funded by the MEPI allocation. In the meantime, the Congress changed the way funding is done and now all of the Middle East, including Israel, is covered.”

Pressed to explain why Arab Israelis have been eligible all along, if Israel was not part of the MEPI allocation, Fuller said, “It’s a fact that at one time Israeli Arabs were excluded by programs open to Jewish Israelis.”

State Department officials were clearly caught off guard by inquiries related to MEET.

Foley insisted that MEET “does not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color, age, religion, national origin or handicap. This policy is consistent with all relevant U.S. government statutes and regulations.”

When presented with evidence to the contrary, Foley replied, “the program has always been open to Israeli Jews [and] accepts applications from all Israelis. Any information to the contrary would be an error.”

And both Foley and Ackerman said they knew nothing of Fuller’s assertion that Jewish and Arab Israelis are funded by two different pots of money.

What is clear is that MEPI, which allocates tens of millions of dollars to a wide range of programs in the Middle East and North Africa, was created to help develop democratic values in the Arab world, according to online State Department reports on MEPI. A MEPI notice of “new grants to NGOs 2004” doesn’t even list Israel, though it includes the West Bank and Gaza (http://mepi.state.gov).

Some State Department releases say, “a key element of MEPI is creating links and partnerships between Arab and U.S. civil society, and with governments to jointly achieve sustainable reform.” But other releases refer to “all people in the MENA region,” which implies the inclusion of non-Arabs.

The Beyster Institute’s Web site states that MEET “does not discriminate on the basis of sex, color, age, religion, national origin or handicap.”

“This is not about religion,” Fuller said during a second interview, a defensive tone in his voice. “We have had Jewish members of the program from Arab countries. All I can tell you is that the current program is open to everyone.”

Fuller said that “those entrepreneurs in Israel who are interested in growing their businesses and reaching out to support their communities with economic development should apply for the program.” He said that MEET “will make sure everyone is comfortable and is taken care of, that everyone has the opportunity to practice their faith.”

He noted that three seminars scheduled for 2008 will take place in countries where Israelis are — theoretically — welcome to visit (though, in some cases, advised not to visit by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

Schwab has applied for the seminar for small businesses slated to take place in Jordan in May.

“Assuming I’m accepted, I hope there won’t be any hostility from other participants,” she said, “but I’ve found that since I’m religious, dress modestly and have a large family Arabs tend to relate to me. We lead similar lifestyles.”

Staff writer Stewart Ain contributed to this report.

The Reason Ahmadinejad Wants Jews to Move to Alaska?

The SEC and the State Department needs to look into this immediately! Iranian President Mahmoud Ahm-a-Sheet head must have bought tons of stock in companies that produce down jackets.

The evidence is clear. Today he suggested that the Jews in Israel should move to Alaska. Imagine what a windfall that would be for the Iranian pipsqueak. He knows about the selfless, guilt producing, chicken soup making people that are at the control panel of the Jewish lobby--the Jewish Mother.

All these Jewish Mothers living in Alaska sending their sons and daughters outside....OY! I guarantee you all that within two hours these mothers will be looking to purchase every last bit of down ever created...down socks, down underwear, heck even down Tallit. There is only one reason for Ahmadinejad's sinister plan..to generate extra funds to pay for his nuclear program

'Let Jews move to Europe or Alaska"

'AP and JPost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST Oct. 5, 2007

Millions of Iranians attended nationwide rallies Friday in support of the Palestinians, while the country's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel's continued existence was an "insult to human dignity."

"The creation, continued existence and unlimited (Western) support for this regime is an insult to human dignity," Ahmadinejad said. "The occupation of Palestine is not limited to one land. The Zionist issue is now a global issue."

Ahmadinejad's remarks came as millions of Iranians held rallies across Iran to protest Israel's continued control of Jerusalem.

The demonstrations for "Al-Quds Day" - Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem - also spilled over into anti-American protests because of US support for Israel.

In the capital Teheran, hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets as they chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Some protesters also burned American and Israeli flags.

State television reported similar large rallies in all other provincial capitals and smaller towns across Iran.

The Iranian president once again said Palestinians should not pay any price because Europeans committed crimes against Jews in World War II. He said they could give a part of their own land in Europe or Alaska so that the Jews can establish their country.

"I ask European governments supporting Zionists and the American people that will you allow occupation of part of your land under a pretext and then talk about a two-state solution?," Ahmadinejad said after the rallies.

Ahmadinejad said a "free referendum" was the solution to the Palestinian issue, saying Jews, Muslims and Christians as well as five million Palestinian refugees should take part in a vote to determine their own fate.

Ayatollah Mahould Hashemi Shahroudi, Iran's judiciary chief, said Friday's rallies was "a good start for the destruction of the Zionist regime."

Parliamentary speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands was a "blatant oppression" and warned that the relationship between the Islamic world and the West won't improve as long as Palestinians are not allowed to determine their fate in a referendum.

Since the Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran has observed the last Friday of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan as "Al-Quds Day," as a way of expressing support to the Palestinians and emphasizing the importance of Jerusalem to Muslims.

Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam after the Saudi Arabian cities of Mecca and Medina.

Meanwhile, thousands of Gazans marched from Beit Lahiya to Jabalya to commemorate "Al-Quds Day." The protesters burned, Israeli, US and British flags.

Also, on Israel's northern border, Hizbullah activists and Lebanese Shi'ites held an anti-Israel protest next to the border fence.

Lebanese troops manned the rally and prevented the protesters from approaching the border.

IDF troops in the North were instructed to raise their level of alert.

Christiane Amanpour Journalist -an Oxymoron

God Chosen Warriors is not the first example of Christiane Amanpour's lack of journalist integrity, just her most recent. The Chief international correspondent of Cable News Network grew up in Tehran where her father was a shill for the Shah's government. Since that the overthrow of the of the Shah, Christiane, a Roman Catholic, has been making up for her father's support of the Shah by supporting Islamic Terrorism every chance she has. She is married to self hating Jew James Rubin (any Jew that is married to her must hate Jews). He couldn't have married her for her looks , so it must be that this former Clinton adviser hates MOTs (members of the tribe) as much as she does.

Christiane cut her teeth on her her one-sided coverage of the conflict in Bosnia. Since then she has continued to support the Islamofacist cause every chance she can; be it her admiration for Yassir Arafat (a pedophile and baby killer) right down the line to a support of Iranian President Ahm-a-sheethead:

There's no doubt that President Ahmadinejad of Iran is provocative and confrontational, and taking Iran's foreign policy, at least on a public way, in a much different direction than it has been in the past.On the other hand, it's also common practice right now by the U.S. and its allies to blame Iran, like the bogeyman, for everything going on in the Middle East. (CNN, June 15, 2007

Amapour (or like my friend Pamela at Atlas Shrugs calls her) Im-a-whore goes around the world speaking about Journalism and Journalistic integrity, but as the report below from CAMERA demonstrates she is an expert on neither Journalism or integrity.

Amanpour's Troubling Journalism

Known for parachuting in to cover the latest global hotspot, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour is one of the most famous journalists in the world. But there have long been questions about her habit of skewing coverage to suit her own political biases. A particularly egregious example of her rush to judgement about one side in a violent conflict was noted by Stephen Kinzer of the New York Times (Oct. 9, 1994). Kinzer quoted a colleague’s description of Amanpour as she reported on a terrorist bombing in the marketplace of the Balkan town of Markale:

She was sitting in Belgrade when that marketplace massacre happened, and she went on the air to say that the Serbs had probably done it. There was no way she could have known that. She was assuming an omniscience which no journalist has.

As it happened in the Markale case, later investigation indicated Serbs could not have perpetrated this particular attack. They, however, were the designated bad actor in Amanpour's story-line and some times, it seems, the facts are immaterial. Despite such unprofessional conduct, the CNN star has frequently been called upon to expound publicly on journalism, which she deems a high calling whose practitioners serve the truth. As she explained to the Montreal Gazette:

I really do believe that journalists are motivated by, first of all, a commitment to the truth, and seeking the truth. But I also think we’re motivated by a sense of fairness. At the bottom of our hearts, I think we’re people who are fair. (July 18, 2007)

Amanpour said much the same at an earlier California appearance, asserting:

"You're either for that [truth] or you're in the propaganda business," she said. "Our objective is the truth, as close to it as we can get. We don’t want to be assailed by ideology, partisan politics or the monopoly of one party." (Pasadena Civic Center, Feb. 15, 2006)

Yet, a review of her reporting over the years in Bosnia, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian territories suggests the hollowness of such lofty claims and underscores her preference for advocacy journalism in which she pushes her own personal definitions of fairness and truth, instead of presenting information objectively.

Amanpour’s biased rendition of Arab-Israeli issues reached a new low in her recent three-part series, "God’s Warriors" in which she frequently equated Muslim and Jewish extremism, failing to distinguish the vast difference in scale of and support for violence in the respective faiths. In the lead-up to the August 2007 broadcast of "God’s Warriors," she expressed a variation on this distorted perspective, saying:

"If I was queen of the world? I would do everything I could to bring rapprochement between the Palestinians and the Israelis in the case of Islamic and Jewish extremism." (Guardian, Aug. 19, 2007)

Her partisanship for the Arab view is apparent too in sympathetic statements about Palestinian goals.

But then you go to Israel -- Palestine -- and you have a group of people, the Palestinians, with a legitimate grievance who are trying to throw off occupation and who are trying to win a state using illegitimate means, which are the suicide bombings. (Larry King show, CNN, Aug. 20, 2007)

Commenting on the outbreak of violence between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza in June 2007, Amanpour blamed Israel and the West:

What happened was then the U.S., Europe, Israel basically punished Hamas and the Palestinians because of Hamas policy and squeezed them and created this real division between Hamas and the PA, which has exploded now. (CNN, June 15, 2007)

Continuing on a similar vein, she conjectured

...we found very clearly that the people were not voting for Hamas for any religious or militant views or reasons, but rather because they had become fed up with what they call the institutional corruption of Fatah and the ineffectiveness of Fatah. In other words, over all these years, about 10 years, really, since the Oslo Peace Accords, Fatah had not yet been able to get with the Israelis an accord to have an independent state. (CNN, June 15, 2007)

Yet, many Palestinians clearly share Hamas’ militant worldview and religious ideology. Moreover, Amanpour betrayed her own muddled logic when she explained why Fatah did not garner enough votes. If, as she claimed, Palestinians were voting against Fatah for failing to get an accord with Israel, then voting for Hamas would not offer a better path to an agreement. Furthermore, the institutional corruption that drove Palestinians away from Fatah involved theft of the Palestinian Authority treasury by Fatah officials, a matter only tangentially related to the peace process.

Amanpour further claims the Palestinian Authority was "unable to get a deal with Israel" and blames Israel for not keeping promises, although she doesn’t specify which ones. While admitting the Palestinians too didn’t keep their promises, she continues to shift the onus onto the Israelis and the U.S.

So Palestinians were fed up and they thought maybe they would try something new. But of course, after Hamas was elected, because the West and Israel doesn't recognize Hamas, doesn't approve of its -- of its militants, wants it to recognize Israel, wants it to renounce terrorism, wants it to keep to all the agreements that the previous Palestinian governments had made with Israel, the West and Israel basically cut off Hamas and cut off all those people in Gaza. (CNN, June 15, 2007)

In fact, the West increased donations to the Palestinian people in 2006 after the election of Hamas, more than doubling the amount of the previous year. The aid was redirected to the office of Palestinian President Abbas so that Hamas could not make use of it.

While Amanpour repeatedly exonerates the Palestinians of responsibility for the conflict or for their own problems, she blames the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for unrelated Middle East strife. Commenting upon the anger and violence in Iraq, Amanpour opined: "They see what's going on in Israel and Palestine" (CNN, April 1, 2003). Amanpour offers no explanation as to how the Shiite-Sunni conflict or the U.S. and British invasion, the obvious immediate causes of anger and violence in Iraq, are related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

She also adopts the Palestinian narrative with respect to refugees. In a program entitled "Passage to Hope" (CNN, June 20, 2007), dedicated to World Refugee Day, Amanpour described how:

Palestinians have become almost permanent refugees while they're waiting for their own homeland since the end of World War II. There are more than 4 million who are outside the Palestinian territory and have pretty much no hope of ever going back.

Amanpour neglected to tell her audience that the Palestinians rejected their first-ever offer of a state in 1947, and then rejected an independent state again in 2000-2001 and she failed to clarify that these Palestinians are not waiting to return to "Palestinian territory" but are demanding land and property in Israel itself.

Advocacy Journalism in Yugoslavia

Amanpour’s willingness to abandon objectivity had earlier been evident in her reporting on the violent break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. She stepped unabashedly out of her role as a reporter when she publicly challenged President Bill Clinton in May 1994 to take action in response to Serbian actions in Bosnia. Many critics charged that her coverage painted a distorted and oversimplified picture by consistently portraying the Serbians as the only malefactors, when in fact both sides - Bosnian Muslims and Serbians - engaged in atrocities against civilians. In an interview with the Guardian, she explained,

It drives me crazy when this neutrality thing comes up. Objectivity, that great journalistic buzz-word, means giving all sides a fair hearing - not treating all sides the same - particularly when all sides are not the same. When you're neutral in a situation like Bosnia, you are an accomplice - an accomplice to genocide."(Guardian, July 6, 1996)

In a speech she gave at the University of Michigan, Amanpour proclaimed,

When our world leaders wanted to shrug away and call it a terrible civil war for which all sides were equally guilty, we said, "No." Genocide against Muslims in Europe was being committed and this had to be stopped. (April 29, 2006)

In actuality, the Bosnian war was not a one-sided slaughter like those perpetrated against Jews, Cambodians, Armenians or Tutsis. Both sides were victimized in the war. An accounting of the war by the Sarajevo-based non-governmental Research and Documentation Center determined that the death toll had been grossly exaggerated. The research, funded by the U.S., the UN and numerous international foundations, determined that

97,207 people were killed during the Bosnian war. Of those, about 60 percent were soldiers and 40 percent civilians. Some 65 percent of those killed were Bosnian Muslims, followed by 25 percent Serbs and more than 8 percent Croats.

While Bosnian Serb leaders responsible for the massacre of several thousand Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, in July 1995, were charged with committing genocide for that specific atrocity, the International Court of Justice at the Hague (ICJ) eventually acquitted Serbia of committing genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovinia in February, 2007. Amanpour, however, paints the war with a broadbrush, describing it simply as a genocide against Muslims.

As noted, the New York Times' Stephen Kinzer reported that Amanpour fingered the Serbs as being responsible for the Markale bombing, but Serbian writer Stella Jatras recounted several years later in a Washington Times Op-Ed:

the fact that a UN classified report concluded that Bosnian Muslim forces had committed the Markale marketplace massacre seems of no consequence to Ms. Amanpour. Christiane Amanpour has yet to inform her viewers of this fact, but continues to allow them to believe the massacre was a Serbian atrocity...("Odd alliance at State, CNN?" March 14, 1999)

Commentator or Reporter in Iraq?

More recently, Amanpour’s advocacy journalism has been on display in her editorializing about the Iraq war. She castigated former British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his support of the war, stating:

It is true that after the Iraq War and the subsequent debacle that has become the Iraq War, Prime Minister Blair had suffered a lot of slings and arrows. And many would say rightly.(CNN, June 15, 2007)

As the specter of conflict with Iran grows, Amanpour increasingly equates U.S. or Israeli stances with those of the theocratic regime. She, in effect, mocks fears of a nuclear-armed Iran, claiming the West has made that nation a "bogeyman":

There's no doubt that President Ahmadinejad of Iran is provocative and confrontational, and taking Iran's foreign policy, at least on a public way, in a much different direction than it has been in the past.On the other hand, it's also common practice right now by the U.S. and its allies to blame Iran, like the bogeyman, for everything going on in the Middle East. (CNN, June 15, 2007)

An Authority on All Topics

Amanpour’s self-ascribed moral authority is reflected in other aspects of her work. She even fashions herself an expert on international law where it suits her story.

As Monica Hakimi noted in an article titled, "The media as participants in the international legal process,"appearing in the Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law (Jan. 1, 2006):

Although when the media apply the law it is usually by communicating the analyses of other actors, the media sometimes attempt to apply the law themselves. In some cases, the media may cultivate journalists who purport to have the expertise to apply international legal norms to particular fact patterns.

Hakimi singles out Amanpour, writing in her footnotes:

For example, Christiane Amanpour of CNN and Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek have earned reputations for international legal analysis. In this sense, Amanpour and Zakaria may be distinguished from, for example, Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times because Amanpour and Zakaria may themselves apply the law, whereas Greenhouse communicates the law as applied by a more conventional actor--the U.S. Supreme Court.

Despite the fact that Amanpour serves as CNN’s chief foreign correspondent, and not its chief legal commentator, she built a central portion of "God's Jewish Warriors" around her contention that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal. In strikingly manipulative fashion, she advocated one side of the argument, relying solely on sources who agreed with her and ignoring those who didn’t. The arguments and historical documents that support the legality of Jewish settlements, arguments put forth by international legal scholars, received no mention at all.

The fact that Amanpour is a celebrated figure in journalism while openly rejecting objectivity in favor of advocacy -- as evident in her "God's Warriors" series -- is a troubling commentary on the profession. Her brand of bias should be shunned, not admired, however lavish her paycheck from CNN.

CAMERA did a great job taking on on CNN and its anti-Semitic, anti-Christian hack job "God's Holy Warriors" with this ad that ran in the NY SUN:

Christiane you can close your mouth there are no terrorists around for you to make nice to.

Click here to Download PDF Of Ad

Israel Bombing of Syria Another New Theory

First it was weapons to Hezbollah, then it was nukes, then it was Chemical Weapons now there is another theory regarding what was behind the IAF bombing mission in the Syrian desert---ELECTRONIC WARFARE. No they weren't dropping old television sets donated by that nefarious Jewish Lobby, nor was their control of the media making Ipods blow up in the trousers of Syrian citizens. This theory says that the IDF was testing a system that will jam Russian Made anti-aircraft detectors. At least according to Geostrategy Direct.

Israeli raid caused electronic disruption
over wide areas of Syria

The lid of secrecy covering the Sept. 6 Israeli air strike into Syria remains tight but one new theory emerging amid the speculation is that the Israeli conducted an electronic warfare exercise in preparation for future strikes or an attack on Iran.

Authoritative reports from the Middle East stated that the Israel operation included extensive electronic warfare jamming by aircraft. The Israeli were testing the capabilities of Russian-made air defenses, including both radar and missiles located near Damascus and south of Homs near the Lebanese northern border.

The raid was unprecedented in the blanket of jamming and electronic disruption that it caused over wide areas of Syria enroute to the target point, a base near the Euphrates River

The jamming also affected parts of Lebanon and Israel but Syria was able to get a small amount of sensor information from one of its electronic eavesdropping stations and spot the Israeli infiltration.

The raid was part of a U.S. “masint” operation according to this theory, referring to the military practice known as measurement and signature intelligence that is designed to learn the chrematistics and capabilities of all weapons in a region that emanate electronic signals. The masint signatures are needed for targeting and for defeating air defense threats.

The daring raid would gain valuable intelligence needed for future strikes by both Israel and the United States in the region.

The U.S. military is considering attacks on both Syria and Iran to counter infiltration by insurgents and terrorists into Iraq, including the Iranian paramilitaries. Israel could use the data for its battle against Hizbullah and possibly a future strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Journalist Jack Wheeler raised this idea in a recent report when he stated that the identity of the target, whether nuclear facilities, missiles or Hizbullah terrorists is “not the story.”

“The primary point of the attack was not to destroy that target,” Wheeler said. “It was to shut down Syria's Russian air defense system during the attack. Doing so made the attack an incredible success. Syria is shamed and silent. Iran is freaking out in panic. Defenseless enemies are fun.”