Al Jazeera English - Focus - Journalism and 'the words of power'

65. Al Jazeera English - Focus - Journalism and 'the words of power'

64. Rodney Brooks (The Press 29/05) is chairman of the (New Zealand) KBRM and an apologist of Israel's terrorist policies perpetrated against a virtualy defenceless Palestinian civilian population. That alone already disqualifies him for having a valid and objective opinions. He is indeed the very last person that should be taken seriously and listened to. It's curious that there is no other country in the world, which so much feels the need to justify its existence and policies so aggressively expounded by a worldwide string of powerful propaganda organisations, targeting governments and western news media. In America this is the hugely influential lobby AIPEC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) , financially supported by wealthy American Zionist Jews for the last sixty odd years which has been proven to be extremely effective in targeting and bribing members of Congress and to a larger extent determining America's foreign policy towards the Middle East and Israel in particular, a country unable to survive without the continued economic and military support (three billion annually) from the US. It's counterpart is the Australian AIJAC, also a financially powerful strong lobby with the same aims as AIPEC. However, although strong and powerful they (the Zionists) are afraid of objective legitimate criticism, even from Jewish people themselves and that is exactly the very reason for the existence of these lobbies.

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Aid convoy sets off for Gaza

63. State piracy at high sea in international waters. Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Aid convoy sets off for Gaza

62. The following is a letter submitted to the NZ Listener by a Christchurch couple who visited the West Bank last year.

"Thank you for the interview with Antony Loewenstein (Listener May 15-21 2010) But I must challenge the reporter's insinuation that Israel would be wise not to become a democracy for all its people, because "violence is rampant in South Africa". Excuse me, but violence, State-sanctioned violence, is rampant in Israel. Readers should see the reports from Defence of Children International www.dci-pal.org/ about the shocking way Palestinian children are arrested in the middle of thee night, accused of throwing rocks at the Wall, yes at the Wall, beaten, made to sign confessions in Hebrew, a language they don't understand. I have a friend who has been a Christian Peacemaker in Hebron four times. Part of her duties there was to escort small children to school so they would not be attacked by settlers. Settlers and their children throw rocks at Palestinians, adults and children, while Israeli soldiers look the other way. See www.cpt-org/hebron for more example of disgusting behaviour. My husband an I visited the West Bank last November. While we were at the Bethlehem University, the story broke out about a woman in early twenties, within a few month of graduation, who was hauled off a bus, blindfolded, hog-tied and taken to Gaza. We also heard many stories about the daily harassment and humiliations faced by students as they try to make their way to class. Then there is Gaza, an open air overcrowded prison. Uri Avnery, the founder of Gush Shalom, has described the siege, still on-going, as 'genocide in slow motion'. This was before the December 2009 bombing and invasion, described by the American Chris Hedges as 'not a war, but murder'. There are Israeli Jews who oppose their regime, most notably members of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, http://www.icahd.org/. The West does not help those brave people in ICAHD by pretending the status quo is acceptable. I suspect that the only way for Israel to evolve into a less violent society, would be for it to become a democratic state for all its people, as are the countries with which Israel falsely claims to share values."
L & M. G.
Letter rejected.

The following letter was submitted to the Christchurch Press by the same contributors.

"Prominent linguist, intellectual, and social critic Noam Chomsky and his daughter have been denied entry into Israel (Press, 18 May). The 81 year-old was kept waiting around at the Allenby Bridge crossing point from Jordan into Israel for 5 hours, which included 2 hours of interrogation, only to have Denied Entry stamped into his passport and thus forced to return to Amman. As the crossing is about 400m below sea level, Chomsky's treatment would have been exhausting even for a much younger man. Chomsky had been invited to deliver a lecture at a Palestinian University near Ramallah. His treatment and subsequent denial of entry is just one small sample of Israel's contempt for Palestinians and for anyone, including diaspora Jews, who is critical of their regime. I wonder, will any American government complain about this "Stalinist" (Chomsky's own description) treatment of one of its most eminent citizens ? Sadly, I doubt it.
Contributed by L.G.

SUPPORT FOR PALESTINIAN RESISTANCE

61. The New Zealand branch for the support of the Palestinian resistance can be found by visiting: < http://wpnz-pflp-solidarity.blogspot.com/ >



Once the world was silent when the Nazis exterminated the Jews. To-day, eighty years later the Palestinian people are being persecuted by the Israeli Zionists, starved and living under the most appalling conditions in GAZA and in refugee camps all over the ME. They are denied the right of return to their their native country, which contravenes international law (Geneva Convention Art 49 ; UN Res. 194 and 3236 the latter stipulates that the right of return is an 'unalienable right'). Remember: silence is guilt by association.

EDITING RULES

60. The following 'Postscript' (15/05/2010) from the letters editor deals with the Christchurch Press editing rules.

"A letter overloaded with references is an obstacle course we don't want our readers to run. Their pleasure surely, is in reading prose that flows-not in making their way through texts cluttered with obstacles. Some contributors delight in showing learning by way of backing up every assertion with references to books and websites. Their diligence is undoubted but unnecessary. The Press is not a scholarly journal. It is a daily paper produced for the general the general reader, and that guiding notion extends to the letters it publishes. We value contributions that address issues in away comprehensible to all our readers. This is not a plea for letters that avoid complicated issues, but a plea for making complexity understandable. Neither is it a warning to specialists to not write to the editor. Far from it. A main pleasure is to read expert opinion when it is plainly expressed. One type of reference we do need is that pointing to the date and issue being written about appeared in the paper. That lets readers turn to the story that sparked the letter".

My comments:
This so called 'explanation' of the editing rules is sheer nonsense. It is a gross exaggeration to state that an occasional casual short reference makes a letter "scholarly", or make "the text cluttered with obstacles". These are completely false assertions. Moreover the editor is also inconsistent in his rulings. There have been scores of letters over the years referring to books, website etc. to validate and back up an opinion, which was especially the case on the subject of Global Warming. Not so long ago a letter was published consisting almost entirely of one long quotation. Some letter writers are allotted more space and more frequent access to the letter pages than others. It always boils down to "who writes what". The editor is using his arguments as a means to control any information readers are better not be made aware of. Fair and legitimate criticism is not tolerated and is being "punished" by exclusion from the letter pages. I think it's time that the editorial staff of the Christchurch Press should have a good hard look at themselves.
*)
Few days after this letter had been rejected by the letters editor because of "lack of space, some letters had to be excluded", I received word from the Chief Editor that I had now been definitely barred from the letter pages.

REJECTED LETTERS

59. So the new Israeli ambassador, tongue in cheek, has the audacity to call Israel a "democratic" state, where 20% of non-Jews are enjoying "full democratic rights". Apart from the fact that these 20% non-Jews have become second class citizens, the demography of Palestine was quite the reverse before 1948, with 20% Jews and 80% Palestinians. (visit: http://www.1948.org.uk/). Where is this majority of the population now ? Almost a million Palestinians were expelled by force of arms between 1947 and 1949 from what to-day is called Israel and are now living under miserable conditions in Gaza, West Bank and huge refugee camps all over the Middle East. During the same period there was a huge invasion of legal and mostly illegal Jewish immigrants from the Diapora. In 1948 Palestinians all of a sudden found a Jewish Cuckoo in their nest. In a real democracy these God forsaken, by the world forgotten souls should be recognized and included in the democratic process. Only that will bring peace to the Middle East.
Posted 8 May and rejected.


59 (a)Kathy Nilsson from California (8/05) revealing letter is raising an interesting question when she states that John Key is from Jewish extraction. I have always suspected Key to be Jewish. Not that that matters, because I profoundly condemn anti-Semitism. However the important question here is whether or not Key is amenable to Zionism and supports Israel's continued oppression of the Palestinian people ? Has he been instrumental in the re-opening of the Israel embassy in Wellington last month ? There are many very good Jews in Israel and beyond who are fervent anti-Zionists and strongly oppose Israel's inhuman policies in the occupied territories.
Posted 9 May 2010 and also rejected.
( John Key is currently New Zealand's Prime Minister)

59 (b)Some weeks ago the Christchurch Press published an article by Benny Morris, one of the most notorious Israeli historians. In a footnote the editor referred to one of the many books he had written on the creation of Israel. Although Morris is a "pro-Israel" historian he is quite honest about the appalling massacres perpetrated by the then Jewish terrorists between 1947 and 1948, validating the many eyewitness horror stories during the expulsion of some 700,000 native Palestinian inhabitants from their homeland. When defending these shocking atrocities in an interview the interviewer remarked: 'There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that' Morris replied: 'If you expect me to burst into tears, I am sorry to disappoint you. There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the twenty-first century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing' .
Posted 13 May 2010 Letter rejected.

*) I must remind readers once again that the Christchurch Press is reluctant to publish any letters from the public dealing with the Israel/Palestinian conflict and has not done so for quite a long time.

LEST WE FORGET

For a comprehensive review of the origins of the Palestinian/Israel conflict visit: http://www.1948.org.uk/ LEST WE FORGET

Strongly recommended reading: "Palestine A Personal History" by Karl Sabbagh. The author was the lead broadcaster and correspondent for the BBC Arabic Service during World War 2. When the war ended he was sent to New York to cover the fateful UN 1947 vote. From there he witnessed the partition and the birth of a new state called Israel. The book is enlightening and humane and deals mainly with the events leading up to the creation of Israel in May 1948.

THE BALFOUR DECLARATION

58. The 1917 Balfour Declaration can be considered as the "precursor" ultimately leading to the creation of Israel. It is the most notorious document on the Middle East, sealing the fate of a nation, called Palestine. It has caused 90 years of death and destruction. The declaration was presented as a major statement of British policy in the ME and was enshrined in the League of Nation's mandate by which Britain effectively governed Palestine, after the defeat of the Turkish forces of the Ottoman empire by the Allied Forces. (in which New Zealand participated). Arthur Balfour was Secr. of State for Foreign Affairs at the time became friendly with a group of eager and devoted British Zionists under leadership of a certain Chaim Weizmann, a chemist from Manchester University. Balfour being Jewish himself appeared to be well disposed to the idea for the creation of a Jewish homeland and persuaded the British Government to accept the Zionist plans to create a homeland for the Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine. This led to what is now known as the "Balfour Declaration" and the Palestinians would eventually find a "Cuckoo in their nest". However the majority of Jews in Britain as well as in the Diaspora were kept ignorant of what was hatched out behind their backs by a small club of Zionists . They were led by the Presidents of two British Jewish organisations: The Board of Deputies and The Jewish National Association. They had - as we are all aware of to-day - already fore casted the dire consequences of pursuing the Zionist plans, same as later several British and American statesmen were warning for. "The proposal will be all the more inadmissible, because they the Jews are and probably for long will remain a minority of the population of Palestine, and it might involve them in the bitterest feuds with their neighbors of other races and religions, which would severely retard their progress and find deplorable echoes in the Orient". Obviously at the time they were unaware of Zionist plans to expel most of the native Arab/Palestinians from their ancestral homeland (ethnic cleansing), so as to achieve a favorable demographic landscape. One of them was Edwin Montagu, Secr. of State for India. He became a constant irritation and frustration to the Zionist movement. His objections were that Palestine was inadequate to form a home for either Jewish or other people as it ignored the fact that making Palestine a national home for the Jews, would necessitate the permanent denial of self determination to 670,000 Palestinians who formed nine-tenth of the population. According to the eminent historian Arthur Koestler, the Balfour Declaration meant that 'one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third'. But that is not quite true. In fact, one nation promised the country of another nation to a small group of men who claimed to represent an ethnic group, although they had the support of half of them.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In July 1937, after continued unrest between the native Palestinian Arabs and the new Zionist/Jewish immigrant arrivals , the British Government decided to somewhat soften the Balfour Declaration of 1917, after an inquiry by a royal commission headed by Lord Peel - the so called Peel Commission - which culminated in a 404-page report. It exhaustively traced the history of the conflict and presenting realities, came to the conclusion that the Mandate was unworkable and that Jews and Arabs could not live under one political roof. Partition was recommended, with the Jews getting 20% (Galilee appr. 40 x 40 km and the Coastal Plains appr. 70 x 12 km) on which they could establish their state. The majority Arab population was to be allotted more than 70% (the present West Bank and the Negev). Something little less than 10% of the country, including the holy cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem (for obvious conflicting religious reasons) and a narrow strip connecting these cities to the Mediterranean Sea at Jaffa, were to remain under British control. It was also recommended that the 300,000 Arabs living in the for the Jewish state earmarked territory should be transferred, either voluntary or under compulsion to the Arab part of Palestine. The 1,250 Jews living in in areas for earmarked for Arab sovereignty were to be moved to the Jewish area.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Because of the continued infighting between immigrant Jews and the native Arab Palestinians the British government issued in May 1939a new White Paper, which promised the Palestinian inhabitants of the Mandate statehood and independence within ten years. (the same as the other countries that before 1918 were once part of the Ottoman Empire:Syria, Lebanon. Jordan, Iraq). This severely curtailed the continued invasion of Jewish immigrants from abroad into the Mandate. A limit was imposed of 15,000 entry certificates per year for five years. All further immigration was conditional to Arab approval, so ensuring an overwhelming Arab majority when independence came. The White Paper amounted to a complete reversal both of the Balfour Declaration policy and its much modified Peel Commission recommendations, only two years before. However, Jewish illegal immigration, mainly from eastern Europe and Russia continued unabated until May 1948.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Total population figures between 1800 - 1882 of eight Palestinian cities (Jewish populations in between brackets):

Jerusalem (1800) 12,000 (Jews 2,000); Safad (1836) 6,000 (Jews 1,500); Nablus (1829) 15,000 (Jews 50); Nablus (1860) 24,000 Jews 300; Hebron (1847) 28,500 (Jews 2,500); Acre (1843) 8,000 (Jews 150); Haifa (1829) 2,500 (Jews 50) Haifa (1870) 3,180 (Jews 900).

*

Jews and Palestinians in those days lived in peace and harmony side by side. The troubles began shortly after the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the massive influx from "Jewish" immigrants (go to Post 5 Shlomo Sand: "When and How was the Jewish People invented") that had entered Palestine illegally. Surely Britain (and later the U.N.) had no business offering the nation of one people to the people of many nations.

UPDATES

The Blog is being updated with the latest news, letters etc. on an almost weekly basis.