Saturday, 26 February 2011

GORDON DUFF: “RAYMOND DAVIS” – CAN IMRAN KHAN SAVE AMERICA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH PAKSITAN?

IMRAN KHAN
February 25, 2011 posted by Gordon Duff
DR. AAFIA FOR DAVIS

RIGHT FOR AMERICA, RIGHT FOR PAKISTAN

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

The standoff between the United States and Pakistan over the arrest of contractor Raymond Davis is not going to be solved unless both nations take a step into that “no man’s land” of trust and honesty.  There is no question about diplomatic status, this was a clumsy mistake made by State Department officials in Washington who had little or no understanding of the legal and political issues at stake.  Recent admissions that Davis is “CIA” mean nothing.  Nobody knows what “CIA” means anymore, not since the wave of privatization that has spread to many of America’s critical security functions.

Were America honest in this, it would admit the truth.  The CIA and State Department leaders had no idea Davis was in Pakistan or what he was doing.  During the Bush era, duplicate lines of command were created that are still in place.  Projects are “green lighted” and funded without oversight, projects that were and are not in the best interests of the United States.  Evidence thus far gives a strong indication that Raymond Davis was employed in such a capacity.  Moreover, he was obviously ill suited for his task and is dangerously unstable. There is little question of this anymore.

There are several ways to look at this.  The one I gravitate to is toward finding those who sent Davis to Pakistan in the first place, a highly dysfunctional combat veteran, exorbitantly paid and obviously answerable to an equally dysfunctional organization.  Davis was a ticking time bomb.  The proof of his phone contacts with Taliban terrorists who have been attacking, not just the Pakistani army but civilians, is well established. What kind of spy keeps “sim cards” in his pocket when arrested?  Aren’t supposed to be swallowed?

Davis was arrested as a criminal, a murderer.  Truth is, he is simply the one caught “holding the bag.”  Davis, now held in custody, those said to be rushing to his aid, his “friends” who killed a cyclist and fled, were actually his.accomplices.

They have fled Pakistan and are being sequestered somewhere in the United States, protected from extradition.  More like Davis are out there.  Working with them are corrupt members of Pakistan’s government and police organizations, enticed by money, some of it from drug operations in Afghanistan.

DRUG POWER

The $65 billion a year in narcotics being exported from Afghanistan hasn’t just destabilized the region.  Some of these drugs, formerly opium paste, not fully processed heroin produced with equipment and chemicals brought into Afghanistan by American businessmen with key political connections, are trucked into Russia and are slowly destroying that nation.  Most, however, is being flown west, Europe, America mostly, flown from airports controlled by the United States, airports where no uninspected and unapproved cargo ever leaves.

If America’s divided “chain of command” was “confused” before, billions in drug money has left it devastated and has made some aspects of America’s security, intelligence and special operations capabilities analogous with organized crime.

America’s “special operation commands” are a hodgepodge of duchies, some answerable to traditional command and control and some are not.  Some may well have fallen under the influence of Afghanistan’s drug trade or the globalist cabal that is trying to take down Iran and Pakistan as part of the globalist agenda oft spoken of by Council on Foreign Relations Director Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Terrorist operations by Americans inside Pakistan, operations against Pakistan itself, under the “cover” of “counter-terrorism” would be part of that agenda.  That agenda is real.  That agenda is “front burner” in Washington, New Delhi, Tel Aviv and Zurich.  Davis is little more than a tiny “cog” in that agenda, a tiny cog that unhinged and may well take the entire mechanism down.

IMRAN KHAN, THERE IS NO ONE ELSE

About a year ago, Veterans Today staffers, Jeff Gates, Raja Mujtaba and I spent a long evening with Pakistan’s reformist political leader and world famous cricketer, Imran Khan.  The discussion was “no holds barred,” very much so, and Jeff and I were in clear agreement.  We left the meeting with the basis for a friendship in place, but there was more.  This was the only man we know of who could bridge the gap, not just between Christians, Jews and Islam but provide a voice Americans would respect.


YouTube - Veterans Today -


Khan is the most trusted political leader in Pakistan though he has little real power.  The military accepts him, the majority of people admire him and, eventually, he is destined to lead Pakistan.  Were an “Imran Khan” on the scene in Libya or Egypt, he is the type of leader the people would be turning to.  I saw in him what I estimate to be a perfect mix of anger at injustice and human decency, a man who can be trusted but not controlled.

This is also a man with a very international voice, someone quickly recognizable as a consensus builder.  This is the man we need today.

Imran Khan has met with the families of the dead in Pakistan.  Cynics cite this as a political “photo op.”  What it does is establish his standing, with the families, families that have been pressured, threatened and even attacked.  The young wife of one of the dead killed herself in protest because of these threats.

Has the pressure on the families, confirmed threats and now unconfirmed reports of an attempt to murder one of the family members, been orchestrated by a criminal organization with direct ties to Raymond Davis?  When Americans think about the Central Intelligence Agency, do they think of an organization that hires armed thugs to victimize family members of crime victims.
If we accept that Davis was legitimately CIA, then we accept that those acts done to support him, acts that can only be described as “gangsterism” are CIA also?  Are we describing a terrorist organization instead?

DR. AAFIA, IMRAN KHAN AND THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS MESS

Dr. Aafia was sentenced, last year, to 87 years in prison for attempting to kill Americans holding her prisoner in Afghanistan.  Aafia, wife of a Boston anesthesiologist, mother of two (kidnapped with her and believed dead) has a doctorate in micro-biology from MIT.  While visiting Pakistan with her children, she was taken off the street with her children and thrown into a van.  Five years later, she turned up in Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan in a CIA secret prison, 85 pounds, wheel chair bound, her children dead, held and tortured for years for what was believed her part in Iraq’s attempts to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger.

However, it had been discovered that the story of the yellowcake uranium had been a fabrication.  Aafia had been held and tortured in attempts to restore the reputation of Dick Cheney, “Scooter” Libby and Karl Rove, who had been involved in “outing” CIA agent Valerie Plame.  Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, had proven the “yellowcake” fantasy to be just that and the Bush administration was lashing out in humiliation.

Dr. Aafia refused to confess to this fantasy and was tortured and raped for 5 years.
Eventually, Aafia was charged with a crime and brought to the United States for trial.  Her trial was one of the most shameful events in American history, utterly ludicrous.

Millions in Pakistan, from the highest military and intelligence leaders, long time friends and allies of the United States, to the poorest of the poor have united to see her freed.  Americans, as they become aware of her fate, are joining in.

She stand convicted, a political convenience for the Bush administration, an abuse of every moral law.

Unless she is freed and allowed to search for her children, if they are still alive, there will be no way out for Raymond Davis who will be hanged, that is certain, hanged or Pakistan will fall and the Taliban may well control a nuclear arsenal.

Was this the game in the first place, putting nuclear weapons in the hands of the Taliban?  Pakistan, a nation whose nuclear arsenal has been more secure than America’s as we learned in 2007 when warheads disappeared from Minot Air Force Base and were recovered on their way to “parts unknown” in the belly of an errant B-52, has long been accused.  There is evidence that military contractors like Davis have, in the past, planned attacks on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons storage facilities, dressed as “Taliban.”  Were they attempting to steal nuclear weapons?  For what purpose?

THE DEAL

Dr. Aafia deserves freedom.  She is held for one reason only, the vanity and debasement of Dick Cheney.

Raymond Davis may well be guilty of murder, spying and even terrorism or guilty of nothing at all.  A legal process, as we are now proceeding, will decide this, one likely to be much fairer than the one that Dr. Aafia was subjected to in the United States.

Davis is very likely to be convicted and sentenced to death.

We can’t bring any of the dead back to life.  There are more than the few we are dealing with here today.  The dead have mounted up since 2001, first 3000 Americans on 9/11 and now millions, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, grieving families in homes around the world, America, Canada, Germany, Britain, Poland and throughout the Middle East.  More are dying today in Libya.

All of these deaths are related.

If Pakistan explodes like Egypt, like Tunisia, like Libya, it does more than put nuclear weapons in play.  A cascade effect, spreading across Central Asia and the Caspian basin, as predicted by Brzezinski, could become a reality with startling consequences.

Quelling the anger the people of Pakistan currently harbor against the United States over the Davis affair is critical to stability in the region.

The only way out is for there to be a trade, Dr. Aafia for Raymond Davis.  There is only one person with the credibility to sell this deal to the people of Pakistan, a deal that may well require “sweetening” with more than the return of Aafia.

The trust between America and Pakistan has to be restored as well, a trust that, though Pakistan is the injured party in this instance, needs to be reestablished in America as well.

There is no person on the scene today but Imran Khan with the credibility and moral authority. 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

"How dare you? You are the one who disappointed everyone!..."

Via Friday-lunch-club

"... A senior German source said Netanyahu had called Merkel on Monday, following the American veto in the UN Security Council last Friday and Germany's vote in favor of the Palestinian proposal to condemn construction in West Bank settlements. The conversation between the two leaders was extremely tense and included mutual accusations and harsh statements, the official said.
 "Liar!"
Netanyahu told Merkel he was disappointed by Germany's vote and by Merkel's refusal to accept Israel's requests before the vote, the source added. Merkel was furious. "How dare you," she said, according to the official. "You are the one who disappointed us. You haven't made a single step to advance peace."...  The German chancellor and her advisers, who have been repeatedly disappointed by Netanyahu's inaccurate statements and failure to keep promises, did not believe a word of what the prime minister told her, the source said..... All of the sources, however, added that it was unclear whether Netanyahu seriously intended to advance the peace process or whether he merely wants to appear to be doing so, as a means of shifting international pressure onto the PA. In the latter case, he is counting on the Palestinians' objection to the Israeli initiative...."
Posted by G, Z, or B at 9:16 PM
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

A Tea Party Homage to Zion



Via Leftwing-Christian.net

Book Review: Underdogma, by Michael Prell
Publisher: BenBella Books

By Richard Edmondson


Negative portrayals of Palestinians in U.S. media are certainly not new. The usual stereotype is that of a violent terrorist eager to shed the blood of innocents, and the word “Hamas” has been oxygenated so often its mere pronunciation now carries sinister overtones in polite company.

But would Americans be prepared to go even further, to believe, for instance, that Palestinians are racists who view those of other cultures as “descendants of monkeys and pigs”? Would they accept that Palestinians are backward, uncivilized fanatics who approve of stoning women or executing people who are gay? In such terms are Palestinians depicted in Underdogma, the newly-released book by Michael Prell, who says the tendency by Westerners in general, and particularly Americans, to sympathize with underdogs—a “reflexive” impulse he refers to as “underdogma”—spells dire implications for the future of civilization.

Underdogmatists are taking every opportunity to heap scorn on American power and to give America’s power away. American Underdogmatists—from the White House to the media to the angry hordes with “pitchforks” whose rage they kindle and stoke—are vilifying American exceptionalism. They are also attacking the American dream by demonizing wealth and those who have achieved positions of power. On campuses and in cities across the nation, American Underdogmatists regularly take to the streets to protest against American power, while championing and exalting America’s power-hungry enemies.”

Prell claims membership in the Tea Party Patriots, one of the larger organizations in the overall Tea Party umbrella movement that has sprouted up over the political landscape in the last few years. His book has won praise from such public figures as Rep. Michelle Bachmann, chair of the Tea Party Congressional Caucus (upon its formation last summer, this House caucus immediately endorsed an Israeli military attack on Iran), as well as Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin, who calls Underdogma “the first great Tea Party book.” It has also been acclaimed by prominent neo-conservatives such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy.

The Tea Party of the 21st century is of course quite a bit different from the one that took place in Boston in 1773, comprised of underdogs, whose act of defiance was aimed at a world power (Great Britain) as well as a monopolistic global corporation (the East India Tea Company). To claim to evoke that spirit while at the same time heaping scorn upon modern-day underdogs and those who support them would seem to be a difficult if not impossible task, but Prell, as we are informed by his publisher’s website, runs a successful marketing and publicity firm and is also a past winner of the Pollie Award, an accolade handed out each year to political consultants and which is described as “the Academy Award of political advertising.” And indeed, one gets the feeling Prell is quite skilled at his craft. Underdogma seems designed almost as much as a public relations offensive as a book. Certain themes are iterated with a repetition so manifold, through its 314 pages, that it strikes one as similar to the regularity of commercial messages in an advertising campaign. We are also informed, perhaps not surprisingly given the book’s begriming of Palestinian mores and culture, that Prell assisted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the latter’s 2009 political campaign.

In elucidating his argument, the author provides a formal, two-part definition for the term “underdogma”: it is the belief that 1 )those who have less power are virtuous and noble, because they have less power; and 2 ) those who have more power are to be scorned—because they have more power.

Underdogma is not simply standing up for “the little guy,” but reflexively standing up for the little guy and assigning him nobility and virtue—because he has less power. My friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach calls this first part of Underdogma the “Always Root for the Underdog school of morality [which] sides with the weaker party, however wicked or immoral.” The second part of Underdogma states that those who have more power (overdogs) are to be reflexively scorned—because they have more power. Ayn Rand called this second part of Underdogma “hatred of the good for being good.”

We might pause here and wonder, if Prell is correct and there is such a thing as “underdogma,” would we not find its correlative in “overdogma”—the belief that those who have more power are virtuous and noble because they have more power…etc… and would Prell and some of the people he quotes perhaps not be votaries of the latter outlook? Nowhere in his book does the author consider this possibility, but we do find him pointing to concrete examples of persons or groups of persons deemed by he as “underdogmatists.” This would include those who took part in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the 1960s (where ‘underdogma’ got its start, he says), a Christian group which opposed the war in Iraq, conspiracy theorists, and anyone who would reflexively blame “big banks” or Wall Street “Fat Cats” for the global financial crisis. He also cites the United Nations as an example of “institutionalized Underdogma,” and he even quotes the words of Jesus (that “it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”), although Christ, he says, was not a full-fledged underdogmatist, but only one who “came close to articulating Underdogma by blessing the meek and declaring them inheritors of the Earth.”

But of course at present the world’s premiere underdogs (to employ an oxymoron) are the Palestinian people, a fact inasmuch acknowledged by Prell when he refers to the Palestine-Israel conflict as “‘Ground Zero’ for Underdogma.” Moreover, the author seems to find little about Palestinian society to admire, and much to deplore, including, as he describes it, a rather shocking level of racism. Palestinians, he says, are not only given to inciting violence but also possess the odious characteristic of viewing people from other cultures as “descendants of monkeys and pigs.” This accusation is made on page 35 and repeated on page 284, although in the second instance the indictment is tied to “radical Islamists” rather than Palestinians per se. From what source does the author derive his views on this alleged racism? It seems to be based almost wholly or entirely on a single quote, which he attributes to “Ikrime Sabri, Mufti of the Palestinian authority.” The reference note the author supplies, containing, ostensibly, an extended version of the quote from Sabri, in all its particulars, reads as follows:

“O Allah, destroy America as it is controlled by Zionist Jews…Allah will avenge, in the name of His Prophet, the colonialist settlers who are the descendents (sic) of monkeys and pigs.” Ikrime Sabri, Mufti of the Palestinian Authority, Voice of Palestine, July 11, 1997

A web search turns up the same quote, attributed to Sabri and bearing the identical date and source, on a number of Islamophobic web sites. However a Wikipedia article on “Ekrima Sa’id Sabri,” identified as having served as Mufti of Jerusalem from 1994-2006 and who is presumably the same individual, makes no mention of the quote, even though much of Wikipedia’s article seems derived from MEMRI, a pro-Israel research group.

Such racial views being ascribed to an entire people—based upon one man’s alleged comment—would seem an exercise in irresponsibility, if not outright malice, but in a text table beginning on page 35, Prell declares that Palestinians “incite hatred of, and violence toward, other cultures, calling them ‘descendents (sic) of monkeys and pigs,’” while adding that “91% of university-aged Palestinians deny Israel’s right to exist.” (The world might of course be waiting for Israel to acknowledge Palestine’s “right to exist” but that’s probably beside the point.) And the author doesn’t leave it at that. Palestinians, we are told, also “torture and kill homosexuals” as well as stone or execute women who have been raped or committed adultery, themes which are repeated in slightly different form and with slightly different wording numerous times in the book:

p. 36: “…women are sometimes stoned to death…” “…outlaw and execute homosexuals…”
p. 38: “…Palestinians torture and kill homosexuals and women…”
p. 42: “…stone to death their own women for the ‘dishonor’ of being raped…”
p. 43: “…kill those same Palestinian women for the ‘dishonor’ of being raped…”
p. 44: “…homosexual and rape-victim-killing Palestinians…”
p. 52: “…outlaw and murder ‘queers…’”
p. 53: “…gay-killing…”

Sometimes Prell substitutes “radical Islamists” or “radical Islam” for Palestinians, such as on p. 56, where we read: “…executes homosexuals in town squares…” But as I mentioned above, there is a certain repetition to it all, not unlike commercials in an advertising campaign, much as if the author were trying to program the information into his readers’ brains—and occasionally all the themes are even melded together into one tightly-packed recitation: “What was it about intolerant, violent, misogynist, homosexual-killing, fundamentalist, sexually repressive Palestinians that inspires such feelings of solidarity among tolerant, peaceful, egalitarian, open-minded, largely secular, and free-spirited Western university students?” he asks on p. 37. The answer to the question, of course, is “underdogma”—an ingrained tendency that “bypasses rational thought and is immune from facts.”

Though not quite to the extent that Palestinians do, President Obama also comes in for some heavy-duty criticism in this book. Prell quotes a line from Obama’s, The Audacity of Hope, specifically, “I am angry about policies that constantly favor the wealthy and powerful,” along with other presidential utterances made elsewhere, from all of which we are to conclude that the Commander in Chief of the United States is not only an Underdogmatist but a quite radical and dangerous one at that. And here we come to a neck of the woods in which Underdogma provides a useful service and could even be deemed “worth reading,” for what the book offers us is a look at how Obama is perceived—not how he is in reality, but how he is perceived—by America’s political Right. For the author of Underdogma, Obama has committed the sin of “bowing down to less powerful world leaders,” but Prell doesn’t exactly do a splendid job of making his case for this. Here are some of the Obama quotes he supplies as evidence of this alleged servility:

“In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.” (Obama speech made April 3, 2009, in Strasbourg, France)

“I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior in our relations.” (address at a summit of Latin American and Caribbean nations later that same month)

“No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” (speech at the United Nations, September 23, 2009)

Is it really possible to construe the above quotes as “bowing down”? Well, it might be if you were convinced of “American exceptionalism,” or that as an exceptional nation America has the inherent right to dominate other countries and to intervene in their affairs as it sees fit. Prell, we learn, is a firm believer in American exceptionalism:

By all objective measures, the United States of America is the greatest, noblest, most honorable and charitable nation in world history. It is a beacon of freedom and opportunity to oppressed people around the world. “America is indeed exceptional by any plausible definition of the term and actually has grown increasingly exceptional over time.” America is powerful. Some say America is a hegemon. But even those who decry hegemony of any kind must agree that, as far as hegemons go, the United States of America is “as benign a hegemon as the world has ever seen.”

Here in the U.S. we find a curious pattern, one might even call it an unwritten rule, prevailing amongst our mainstream media. Pundits across the spectrum, from print to broadcast, from Democrat to Republican, freely criticize our elected leaders, including the president, and often dish out biting analyses of policies put in place by Washington. Most Americans believe this is because we have a free and independent media, largely due to the “freedom of the press” safeguard written into the First Amendment to the Constitution, but it’s a mistaken belief, for there are two things that seldom if ever are cut down or disparaged in any way, two things hardly ever spoken of in any but the most hushed and reverent tones: 1 ) Israel, and 2 ) any of Israel’s leaders. An irony to be sure—that correspondents and analysts are free to criticize their own leaders, but not those of another country—but such is the case. Prell of course, in keeping with this pattern of behavior, offers no criticism whatever of Israel or any of its leaders. They are apparently faultless.

Had Prell or his publisher, BenBella Books, have generated a book attributing to Jews, or Israelis, such traits or characteristics as they have conferred upon Palestinians, how would it have been received? Such a book could easily have been produced. A number of Israeli rabbis have made blatantly racist and dehumanizing comments, and one does not have to look too far to find examples of this. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, for instance, spiritual leader of the Israeli Shas Party, has compared Gentiles to donkeys , while many Israeli rabbis have come out in support of a book called The King’s Torah, written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, which asserts that it is acceptable to kill non-Jewish babies “if it is clear they will grow up to harm us.” But do we deduce from the ramblings of a few disturbed men that all Jews feel the same way? This is what Prell seems to do with the Palestinians. Shapira’s book, by the way, has been described as a rabbinical guidebook for killing non-Jews. But this is not the type of information you’ll find in Underdogma.

So how, then, does Israel fare in the pages of Prell’s book? How is the Jewish state portrayed? By and large as a tolerant nation (the author mentions the country’s annual Gay Pride parade), where justice is valued, where security forces are careful to avoid civilian casualties, a land whose people “apologize for the deaths of innocents and investigate what went wrong.” But the author’s focus overall seems less on elevating or extoling Israel than upon denigrating Israel’s enemies. Thus while Israelis may “apologize for the deaths of innocents,” Palestinians on the other hand, he informs us, “celebrate” such deaths and call them “heroic.” And in denigrating Israel’s enemies in such a manner, the author, by extension, transforms them into America’s enemies as well.

The Tea Party Patriots website endorses the book as “recommended reading,” proclaiming that, “Underdogma was written by one of us—a fellow Tea Party Patriot who has been volunteering behind the scenes and helping us for a long time.” The site also supplies a link, to the BenBella Books website, along with the appeal that if you purchase the book there, directly from the publisher, “the author will donate 100% of his royalties to the Tea Party Patriots!!!”—and as mentioned above, TPP co-founder and national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin has hailed Underdogma as “the first great Tea Party book.”

Aside from book royalties, how does the TPP get its funding? “All money we have raised has come in the form of donations of varying size from concerned average Americans,” says the organization’s website on its about us page. Apparently, despite the economic downturn, the donations have been robust. A feature story on Martin, published May 9, 2010 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, mentions that the TPP leader “draws a monthly salary of about $6,000”—a respectable enough rebound considering the failure of her husband’s business and his consequent filing for bankruptcy in 2008 “with tax debts alone of more than $680,000.” The TPP is also holding an “American Policy Summit” this weekend, Feb. 25-27, 2011, in Phoenix, Arizona, with more than 20 confirmed speakers as of this writing. The summit is to be held at the Phoenix Convention Center, which in the past several years has undergone a multi-phased, $600 million expansion and is now regarded as one of the top 20 convention venues in North America. The speaker list includes John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, former Minnesota Governor Tom Pawlenty, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation, political consultant and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, Fox News commentator Herman Cain, conservative website publisher Andrew Breitbart, among others—and of course Martin herself. Click here to view a promo video of the event.

One other aspect of Underdogma that bears mentioning is the author’s treatment of the global financial crisis—a crisis, he says, which underdogma played a role in creating and which underdogmatists have exploited in an effort to “reorder the balance of power in America.” The financial straits in which Americans, and much of the rest of the world, now find themselves came about, at least in part, because politicians, “under the guise of standing up for the little guy (and against the big, greedy banks),” says Prell, passed laws forcing financial institutions to issue loans to unqualified borrowers, resulting in millions of people defaulting on home mortgages. He is especially critical of government sponsored enterprises such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in which the government backed (either in reality, as Prell maintains, or only “implicitly” as is argued here) mortgage loans in the event of homeowner default. “Duplicitous mortgage brokers” were then set to make “pots of money” selling mortgages to those without the means of repaying them, thus creating a house of cards with no stable foundation. According to Prell, when we assign responsibility for the inevitable collapse of that house of cards, we should divvy it out in the following order: 1 ) the homeowners who failed to pay off their mortgages, and 2 ) the “underdogmatist” politicians who passed laws making it necessary for financial institutions to issue these loans to ineligible borrowers.

If “champion of the underdog” politicians and governments had simply stayed out of the mortgage business and had not artificially removed risk from the system, opportunists—from borrowers to bankers to subprime lenders to Wall Street investors—would not have taken advantage of the system the way they did, because there would have been consequences to their actions.

It would perhaps come as news to millions of America’s poor that they have such powerful champions in Washington. I am not an economist and certainly am not going to try and provide an analysis of the global financial crisis here. However I would make the rather self-evident observation that big money exerts enormous influence over the American political system in the form of campaign donations to candidates, including, of course, donations from the banking industry. According to OpenSecrets.org, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co., UBS AG, and Morgan Stanley—all heavy hitters in the banking and financial services industry—were all among the top 20 contributors to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. If “underdogmatist” politicians like Obama keep enacting laws they disapprove of, then why do bankers such as these keep contributing to their campaigns? An “overdogmatist” (such as Prell perhaps?) might suggest it’s out of virtue, generosity, and public-spiritedness, with no expectations on the bankers’ part of ever getting anything in return. But is that how things really work in Washington? (Click here, here, and here, for bankers expressing support and approval for Obama’s policies) Obama’s top 20 contributors perhaps did not get every single thing they wished for, but they must have gotten something. It would be naïve to believe otherwise, but a lot of Tea Party rhetoric we hear nowadays seems to tap into a rather large reservoir of public naivety.

Underdogma’s subtitle is “How America’s Enemies Use Our Love for the Underdog to Trash American Power,” and according to Prell, this trashing is pervasive. But where does this societal phenomenon come from and why is it so widespread among the American populace? The author offers a theory on that, and on its face it sounds plausible:

Regardless of where we grew up or how we were raised, each of us has a tangible, personal understanding of what it feels like to be a small and powerless underdog surrounded by those who have more power. We begin life tiny and helpless, at the mercy of those who are bigger and more powerful than us; parents and guardians who tell us what to eat, what to wear, how to behave—even when to sleep and when to wake up. Then we encounter school teachers and professors who work us, test us, and assign grades to us that could shape the future directions of our lives. After school, we emerge into the workforce, where we face new Goliaths: bosses and supervisors who interview us, hire us, set our incomes, and hold the power to promote or fire us.

But does this really explain the public’s growing disgust with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, with the blockade of Gaza, or with the use of chemical weapons like white phosphorous in the commission of war crimes? Does it explain the resentment Americans feel at allocating public money to bail out bankers, who then turn around and give themselves extravagant pay bonuses? And does it explain the undue influence wielded by the wealthiest ten percent of the population, their ability to literally buy politicians, to control the media—and the outrage felt by the remaining 90 percent who see rampant corporate crime with a government not only doing little or nothing about it but presiding over a ‘revolving door’ through which the same people move from private industry into jobs as government regulators and back again? What the author seems to have overlooked is that the most powerful people in the world do not and did not, by and large, attain their stations in life through acts of kindness, benevolence, and ethicality. Where there is smoke there is fire, and where large numbers of people despise powerful institutions and individuals, there often is good reason for it. Prell should take a tip from the writer of the book of Ephesians: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Eph. 6:12)

Underdogma hit the bookstore shelves in late January/early February just as millions of people across North Africa and the Middle East were rising up against corrupt dictators (a configuration of events Prell and his publisher probably didn’t count on), some of whom had been in power 30 years or more. The fact that these uprisings have been cheered and applauded the world over would perhaps lend credence to the author’s theory that people do indeed support underdogs. But how do we look at figures like Hosni Mubarak through the lens of what Prell writes in this book? How does Mubarak, a tyrant who enjoyed America’s support year in and year out for three decades (years spent imprisoning, torturing, and killing his own people) square off with Prell’s view of America as a gracious and noble hegemon? In what way does preserving a peace treaty with Israel outweigh in importance the Egyptian blood that flowed in those 30 years? What Prell fails to consider is that the dislike for America, presently widespread throughout the world, might have something to do with hypocrisy and the fact that America’s leaders pay lip service to democracy while propping up dictators; that it might have something to do with torturing people, with invading other lands under transparently false pretexts, something America has done not just once but repeatedly. How does Prell reconcile all of this—loathing for America, and its policies, grounded in very real, very understandable reasons—with his complaints about “underdogmatists” and the harm they are allegedly doing the country? We don’t know. He doesn’t address it. But the fact of the matter is this: people may hate a dictator, but their contempt for a hypocrite is in some respects even deeper, more rooted in the gut. In the era of Internet and social networking websites, with discontented people all over the world plugged in, America’s leaders are likely to find it increasingly difficult to camouflage their hypocrisy behind the obliging “iron curtain” of corporate media propaganda.

“My goal, in writing this book, is to stop Underdogmatists by lifting the veil of Underdogma, showing you the empathetic bridge they have built to our near-universal love for the underdog, and detonating that bridge so they can never again cross it to pick power from our pockets,” says Prell on the closing page of his book. But the question is not one of “picking pockets.” The question is whether powerful nations, and people who hold positions of power in those nations, ever commit acts of evil. Since Prell uses the words of Jesus to bolster his arguments, I will consider myself at liberty, here in closing, to do the same:

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

The above words, spoken by Christ during his so-called “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem prior to the crucifixion, are found in John 12:31. Were Christ an “overdogmatist,” he would of course welcome the prince of this world and regard him as virtuous and noble—because he has great power. Were Jesus an “underdogmatist,” on the other hand, he would, to be sure, scorn the prince of this world, but only because of his power, not for anything objectionable the Prince of this World might have done (for powerful people rarely, if ever, commit acts of evil, at least not if they’re Americans).

What we find, however, is Christ the realist, one who did not see Roman or Pharisaic “exceptionalism” everywhere he turned, but rather who looked at reality and saw it for what it is—that the powerful have immeasurably greater capacity for committing evil, and far too often the willingness to go with it, than do the weak. Prell says underdogma is “all around us.” I would encourage Americans, however, and particularly American Christians (of which I am one) not to be taken in by his amateurish sophistry.



River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Friday, 25 February 2011

Palestinian Idiot Advice Erdogan: Don't Trust the Arab Throngs, Don't lose your old Friends, Nato and Israel (PUMPED)

I added few picture of the "Arab Throngs"

"Indeed, as the quality of metals is often tested by fire, so is the quality of men tested by their stands and attitudes toward the enduring scandal of the enduring Gaza nightmare as well as the overall Palestinian cause."  Khalid Amayreh

Dear Readers I am bringing to you two posts and two comment written by the Palestinian Idiot in Mollistine

Flashback:
Thursday, August 20, 2009


Syrian President Proposes Regional Alliance: Click Here to Watch Video.

COMMENT:

A few days ago the Turkish military conducted joint maneuvers with Israeli and American forces.

When Ahmadinejad visits his puppet Maliki in the Green Zone of Baghdad, he is protected by U.S. Marines. About 200,000 U.S. occupation troops still occupy Iraq, while Iran and Syria talk about "resistance" while tacitly supporting that occupation. Syria and the puppet Maliki have just signed a treaty for strategic military and political cooperation (Iranian and American orders?). And this came on the heels of a visit by a high level U.S. military team to Damascus to discuss steps Syria must take to "enhance security" in Iraq.


Based on the alliance proposed by Assad, are we to expect joint Syrian-Iraqi-Turkish-Israeli-U.S.-Iranian military exercises pretty soon? Why not? It is all for "regional stability" and to defeat "Al-Qaeda!"

Celebrate the "New Middle East" now; or else!

# posted by Tony : 3:14 AM


Today: Wednesday, June 09, 2010

New face of power in the Middle East



Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's handling of the Gaza crisis has brought him into the spotlight – and his country into the centre of regional politics.

Patrick Cockburn reports
"Ever since Israeli commandos stormed a ship carrying aid to Gaza killing nine activists, the face of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan – the man who led denunciations of the raid – has been prominent on front pages and television screens across the Middle East.

The bloody fiasco has led to a crucial change in the balance of power in the Middle East, greater than anything seen in the region since the collapse of the Soviet Union deprived the Arabs of their most powerful ally....."


THE IDIOT'S COMMENT
Advice to Erdogan and to Turkey: Don't Trust the Arab Throngs!

Lebanon "Throngs" 

 Gaza "Throngs"


Tunis  "Throngs"

Egypt  "Throngs"

Egypt "Throngs"


Libya "Throngs"

Iraq "Throngs" 


Yemen "Throngs"


They are the same "masses" which cheered for the former Soviet Union; they have no convictions or real understanding of their interests or of history. They are like lost sheep, looking for an easy way out; Erdogan is the shepherd of the moment. Tomorrow? Who knows....

These are the same gullible throngs that cheered for Lawrence of Arabia 100 years ago and fought the Ottomans. Why? Because the British Colonialists promised them independence. Can you believe that!

Fast forward and you find the same "masses" cheering for Obama in Cairo. Why? Because he promised a "Palestinian State!" Has anything changed? 


Hell, most Arab countries (including Syria) conspired with the Empire to destroy Iraq! The Syrian air force proudly joined the USAF in bombing Iraqi forces in Kuwait!

As the Turks say, the Arabs are traitors, even to their own causes.


I will change my mind when I see evidence to the contrary.

# posted by Tony : 4:46 AM

My comment:
In his old comment the Idiot attacked Syria, Iran and Turky, and predicted a joint Syrian-Iraqi-Turkish-Israeli-U.S.-Iranian military exercises pretty soon?

On seeing Turkisk-Israeli Flotilla real exercise, he made a U-Turn, to ask Erdogan and Turky, not trust Arab thogs.

What Arabs the Idiot is talking about?

The Idiot is not talking about the Arab regimes?

He is talking about the People who raised the Pictures of Erdogan and the Turkish flags in Gaza, Lebanon
waving Turkish flags and nine coffins draped in the red banner to honour the Turkish flotilla martyres chanting:

"Oh Allah, the merciful, preserve Erdogan for us," using language often reserved for Hizbollah's popular leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who has praised Mr Erdogan's stance.

The Idiot knows that most of his reader shall not read the full article at the sourse, so he  ommited the main part of Patrick Cockburn report talking about the Rise of a Muslim Turkish Leader, who made Turkey "a powerful player in the Middle East to a degree that has not happened since the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War." and "has received strong backing for his strong stance following the deaths of his countrymen on board the Mavi Marmara ship"

In other words he is telling Erdogan and Turkey:  Be careful. Don't Trust Arab traitor, Don't lose your old Friends,  Nato and Israel

Now read the rest  of the report (Not posted at PP)

While Muslim states were always going to praise any leader who confronted Israel, Mr Erdogan's personal role is one that will have lasting significance across the region. With his leadership, Turkey is once more becoming a powerful player in the Middle East to a degree that has not happened since the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War.

Turkey was the driving force behind attempts to denounce the raid at a regional summit that ended yesterday in Istanbul. It received the backing of 21 of the members of an Asian summit but the crucial 22nd member, Israel, blocked any mention of the raid in an end of summit declaration.

Israeli commentators are hopeful that Turkish belligerence is a passing phase and there will be no permanent damage to their country's relations with Turkey. Yet Mr Erdogan has received strong backing for his strong stance following the deaths of his countrymen on board the Mavi Marmara ship.

At a rally in Beirut, thousands of Lebanese waved Turkish flags and nine coffins draped in the red banner were displayed to honour the Turkish flotilla dead.

"Oh Allah, the merciful, preserve Erdogan for us," protesters chanted, using language often reserved for Hizbollah's popular leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who has praised Mr Erdogan's stance.

With a population of 72 million and the second largest armed forces in Nato after the US, it is surprising Turkey had not been a major role in the Middle East before now.

In a televised address on the Israeli raid, Mr Erdogan said "this daring, irresponsible, reckless, unlawful, and inhumane attack by the Israeli government must absolutely be punished. Turkey's hostility is as powerful as its friendship is precious."

Such threats from other Middle East leaders could be ignored because their regimes are too shaky and unpopular for them to do much more than cling to power. But Turkey is different because politically, diplomatically and militarily it has been rapidly growing in strength.

In relations with Iraq, Iran, Syria and its other neighbours it is playing a central role for the first time since Kemal Ataturk, the first President of modern Turkey. In Iraq, for instance, the US depends on Turkey to increase its influence and counterbalance Iran as 92,000 US troops withdraw over the next 18 months.

It is not clear how far Mr Erdogan will go this time to assert Turkey's leadership in the Middle East and take advantage of Israel's fiasco. His track record is as a man who is quick to take advantage of others' mistakes. But he likes to pick his moment and is careful not to overplay his hand. He has done this with great skill in domestic politics in his confrontations with the Turkish army leadership who used to determine Turkey's foreign policy.

Mr Erdogan, the son of a coastguard official, was born in Rize on the Black Sea in 1954. He moved with his family to Istanbul when he was 13. He reputedly sold lemonade and sesame buns in working-class districts of the capital while attending religious schools. Tall and strongly built, he became a professional footballer while obtaining a degree in management at Marmara University. He acquired a reputation for piety, saying his prayers before each football match. But from an early stage he was involved in politics. He had met Necmettin Erbakan, the leader of the Islamic Welfare party, when he was at university and became leader of the party's youth wing in Istanbul.

His rapid rise was interrupted by military coups of which there have been four in Turkey since 1960. After the coup of 1980 he lost his job in the capital's transport authority when he was ordered to shave off his moustache – seen as a sign of excessive Islamic fervour – and refused.

An able orator and political organiser, he rose through the party ranks and became mayor of Istanbul at the age of 40, running the city between 1994 and 1998. He was regarded as an honest and efficient administrator.

The army forced Islamic Welfare out of power and Mr Erdogan served four months in prison for reciting an Islamic poem which contained the allegedly inflammatory lines: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers."

Mr Erdogan decided along with other young Islamist political leaders that the army and the Turkish establishment would never let them take power unless they showed themselves pro-Western and pro-capitalist. They formed the Justice and Development Party, the AK, in 2001 which won the general election the following year.

Supporters for the new party were newly rich but pious businessmen in Anatolia as well as the peasantry and the poor of the cities. In power, Mr Erdogan was able to justify reduction in the power of the military as a reform made necessary by Turkey's application for EU membership. He was aided by a sustained economic boom during which foreign capital, encouraged by its EU application, poured into Turkey and the economy grew at an average rate of 7 per cent up to 2007. Careful to avoid making enemies unnecessarily, Mr Erdogan placated the US after the Turkish parliament refused to allow US troops to invade northern Iraq from Turkey in 2003.

Generally, Mr Erdogan has come off the winner in a series of skirmishes with "secularists" over issues such as women wearing headscarves. He patiently waited for the army leadership to make a mistake, which they did in 2007 when they tried to prevent the Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, becoming president. A General Staff website threatened military action if parliament voted for Mr Gul and Mr Erdogan called a snap general election in which the AK won an overwhelming 47 per cent of the vote.

Since 2007 Mr Erdogan's government has gone far in bringing the military under civilian control. There has been a prolonged investigation into an alleged plot by junior officers to launch a coup, some 49 officers being arrested earlier this year. The present crisis in relations with Israel may further weaken the authority of older and more senior officers, seen as the protagonists of strong links to Israel and the US.

The Israeli wars in Lebanon in 2006 and 2008 made Israel unpopular in Turkey.

Mr Erdogan walked out of a session at Davos because he was not given enough time to respond to Israeli President Shimon Peres' justification for bombing Gaza. Back in Turkey his walk out was vastly popular. His strength then, as now, is that the majority of Turks agree with him.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Gilad Atzmon: Captain Israel- A Sickening Hasbara Magazine For Jewish Diaspora Youngsters

Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 12:58PM Gilad Atzmon


Look at this new Jewish -cartoon magazine. PDF vesion
It has become pretty obvious that that Israelis and Zionists do not try to disguise their morbidity anymore. Zionism is clearly a threat to humanity and humanism.
Airplanes and tanks, decorated with Jewish symbols, are consigned to spread death and carnage in the name of the Jewish people.
Captain Israel, a kosher superman, is holding a Menorah torch. He is there to set the entire region on fire.


Captain Israel Disseminating the deceitful myth of Jewish Exile and homecoming (above)
A few more lies (just to be on the safe side).

Endowed with the 'strength of Samson' and the 'wisdom of Solomon', Captain Israel is a genocidal hero who profoundly personifies the disastrous state of current Jewish national affairs

Israelis and Zionists are proud of their pathological, murderous intentions. They are a threat not just to their neighbors, but to humanism and humanity in general.

Unlike the naive, idealist and humanist Superman who steps in to attack and terrorize wife beaters, profiteers, a lynch mob and gangsters, the kosher Super man is far from being naive. He is an ethnic cleanser, murderous and politically indoctrinated. He is there to save one people only namely the 'chosen tribe'.
Here is what the SupperJews’ Website says about its kosher characters.

“Led by the fearsome Captain Israel and the fiery Beth El, Team SuperJews is a group of everyday people who rise to action when help is needed. Uniquely talented yet collectively strong, Team SuperJews unites whenever new or recurring threats endanger the Jewish community.”

According to SupperJews’ Website the following Jewish organisations are affiliated with the project.

I really want to know, once and for all, where Zionism ends and Jewishness starts?

Israel investing $1.6 million in "new media warriors"

Jillian Kestler-D'Amours, The Electronic Intifada, 24 February 2011



Israel desperately tried to control the message during its attack on Gaza in winter 2008-09. (Oren Ziv/ActiveStills)

The Israeli military establishment is once again on the offensive, but instead of high-tech weaponry and missiles, it is using computer screens, keyboards and rapid wireless connections to fight what Israeli military representatives are dubbing a "new media war."

In early February, military spokesperson Avi Benayahu announced that approximately $1.6 million would be invested to train more than a hundred Israeli "media warriors," who would use social media tools to disseminate Israeli propaganda to audiences around the world.

"We need to ensure the confidence of the public, and assist the minister of foreign affairs to obtain that legitimization which is required for an army like ours to effect a military operation, whether it's in the north or the south," said Benayahu of this new media campaign during the 11th annual Herzliya security conference in early February.

Held at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya near Tel Aviv, the Herzliya Conference is a largely right-wing, neo-conservative gathering that brings together mainly Israeli and American government, business and academic figures to discuss Israeli policy and regional and global issues. This year's conference, which was covered by this reporter, was held under the theme "The Balance of Israel's National Strength and Security."

Speaking on a panel called "New Media as a Strategic Weapon," Benayahu told the audience in Herzliya that Israeli soldiers are now forced to be more aware of the fact that new media users can be documenting their actions at all times.

"[There is] an unprecedented responsibility to the commanders," he said. "They have to think if the civilian across from them or the child on the second floor above them is a combatant or a new generation media person."

According to Benayahu, the Israeli military has prioritized the field of new media in order to combat "pro-Iranian factors" which use the Internet to "delegitimize Israel."

"It is orchestrated and timed and financed by all the pro-Iranian factors," he stated. "They know how to flood us with media and information. They are also nurturing all these pro-radical organizations. The Palestinian Diaspora [is] conducting this [work] in universities, in the [United Nations] institutions, in the human rights institutions, and in the new media," he added.

Strategy perfected during attack on Gaza

It was during the outbreak of Israel's attacks on Gaza in the winter of 2008-09 -- during which more than 1,400 Palestinians, including 300 children, were killed -- that the Israeli hasbara campaign concentrated its focus on new media sources.

"Hasbara," the Hebrew word for "explanation," is used to describe official Israeli efforts to release information, spin and propaganda on behalf of the state and its governmental, communication and informational branches.

Key messages during the three weeks of attacks, dubbed Operation Cast Lead by Israel, included the claims that Hamas broke the ceasefire agreement with Israel, that Israel's aim was to defend its citizens and that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Israel's assault on Gaza has been condemned by numerous international human rights organizations. Israeli officials responsible for the attacks are suspected of war crimes according to the UN-commissioned fact-finding mission led by international jurist Richard Goldstone.

"Israel knew of the violent extent of its planned war on Gaza well before it took place," Ramzy Baroud, a Palestinian-American political analyst, journalist and author, told The Electronic Intifada.

"The political rationale for that was Hamas needed to be taught a lesson, hoping for two possible outcomes: that either Hamas will simply disintegrate under the weight of Israeli bombs, or that the people will topple the government," Baroud added. "For that to happen, the extent of the violence had to be extraordinary, and had to target largely civilian infrastructure and exact a high price in terms of civilian causality."

"That required planning and lots of it. The propaganda, as in disseminating misinformation, falsehoods, half truths and selective versions of events, was more institutionalized than ever," he said.

In order to carry out its hasbara campaign, the Israeli military opened a YouTube account in December 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk), where administrators uploaded dozens of videos depicting Israeli bombings and missile strikes, and images of Israeli shipments of humanitarian aid into the besieged Gaza Strip.

One of the first videos uploaded to the account on 31 December 2008, for example, displays what the Israeli military defined as "a precision [air force] strike against weapons hidden in a Gaza mosque."

According to Aliza Landes, an Israeli soldier originally from Boston, Massachusetts, who now heads the military's new media unit, the YouTube account has been the Israeli army's "greatest success" to date.

"YouTube is our greatest success," said Landes, who was called on stage by Benyahu during the "New Media as a Strategic Weapon" panel, to talk specifically about the Israeli military's New Media Desk and spoke for approximately ten minutes. "Visual material is what is most compelling online. It's evidence. It's proof in a way that a written statement isn't. If there is a big operation going on and we can provide visual evidence of what's happening, then other people can use that to make arguments and discuss things."

Tangible impact on Palestinians

While the real impact of Israeli hasbara is difficult to determine, perhaps its most dangerous impact is how it easily seeps into newspapers and magazines in Israel and abroad, thereby swaying the public discourse.

"The media has I think the tremendous power to influence how society sees itself, how it interprets its reality," explained Nasser Rego, the International Relations Coordinator at I'lam, the Media Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel. "The media is extensively consumed in Israel; 90 percent of the public takes in media on a regular basis. So it has a tremendous impact."

According to Rego, the Israeli media's portrayal of Palestinian citizens of Israel has a palpable impact on the community, which accounts for 20 percent of the population. "I think what it does is it dehumanizes Palestinians and the community [and portrays them as] being interlopers or being these people that come from the outside. Then it seems almost justifiable to treat them or deal with them in a way that's reflective of that coverage. So to continue to deny them their rights as human beings, basic civil rights, to continue and to press with the policy of home demolitions."

Rego explained that the Israeli reaction to its attack on Gaza in winter 2008-09 is a prime example of how Israeli hasbara -- and the coverage allotted to this propaganda by Israeli news sources -- can influence public opinion, which was largely favorable to the Israeli attack.

"I think unfortunately when the community has been dehumanized, there really [aren't] too many barriers to such kind of action continuing or even increasing in degree and worsening. For now I think this is the most troublesome impact of this kind of coverage," he told The Electronic Intifada.

A more recent example of how easily Israeli hasbara can infiltrate into the mainstream media and influence a situation was evident at the beginning of this year when Jawaher Abu Rahmah died as a result of excessive tear gas inhalation during a demonstration against the Israeli wall and settlements in the occupied West Bank village of Bilin.

Almost immediately after her death, the Israeli military made statements suggesting a variety of lies and misinformation. Anonymous "army sources" were widely quoted by Israeli reporters and bloggers as stating that Abu Rahmah was possibly not even present at the 31 December 2010 demonstration in Bilin, or that her death resulted from a pre-existing medical condition.

While these claims were quickly refuted by eyewitnesses and doctors at the Ramallah-area hospital where Abu Rahmah passed away, the damage was already done: the link between fiction and reality had been blurred.

"The army is trying to evade its responsibility for Jawaher's death with lies and invented narratives that have no basis. They are spreading these lies and invented narratives via the media, which is not bothering to do basic fact checking," explained Mohammed Khatib, a member of the Bilin Popular Committee, in a press release put out by the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee.

"Our version is supported by named sources and with medical documents. In a properly functioning society, the army's version, which has been spread by anonymous sources, would not be considered worthy of publication," Khatib added.

Hasbara's greatest challenge is Israel itself

According to Ramzy Baroud, an absence of Palestinian voices in US media depictions of the situation in Palestine makes it more difficult to counter Israeli propaganda.

"I don't think it's a matter of Israel's propaganda machine's own success or failure that is causing this amount of misunderstanding among general publics, mostly in the West," he said. "The misconstruction and confusion are largely caused by the absence of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian voices -- in fact reasonable and objective voices altogether -- when it comes to the conflict in Palestine, from mainstream US media."

A lack of coordination, an absence of media platforms and "the wall of the mainstream media" all make getting Palestinian voices to a large, international audience much more difficult than it is to present Israeli voices, whose messages are long-established and have been ingrained into Western discourse, Baroud explained.

"The Israeli propaganda is older and is almost embedded in Western psyche which sees Israel as the embodiment of goodness, freedom, bravery and democracy, while Arabs are the antithesis of all that is good and 'American' or 'Western.' In other words, Israelis are 'us' and the Arabs are 'them,'" he said.

Still, Baroud added that the greatest challenge to Israel's hasbara campaign is Israeli actions and policies themselves.

"Israel's real challenge is not the Palestinian voice per se, but Israel's own behavior. Even if there is no Palestinian voice altogether, Israel's war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank are so revolting that even well-financed media campaigns cannot hide their atrociousness in their entirety," he said.

"Israel's biggest opponent in the media is its own crimes."

Originally from Montreal, Jillian Kestler-D'Amours is a reporter and documentary filmmaker based in occupied East Jerusalem. More of her work can be found at http://jilldamours.wordpress.com.