Israel’s visiting chief of staff finds doors closed in Obama’s Washington

Israel’s visiting chief of staff finds doors closed

in Obama’s Washington

WASHINGTON — Last year, Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi had no problem setting up meetings with top officials in the U.S. government.

On his current trip to Washington, Ashkenazi sought to meet the administration of President Barack Obama, but most officials were unavailable. Diplomatic sources said Ashkenazi failed to obtain access to any Cabinet member, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The Israeli military chief, who  sought to discuss the Iranian nuclear threat, won’t even meet his counterpart, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“The administration is sending a very clear message to Israel, and this is we want to talk about Palestine and not Iran,” a diplomat who has been following U.S.-Israel relations said.

On March 12, Ashkenazi left for a five-day visit to the United States meant to lobby the Obama administration to abandon the planned U.S. dialogue with Iran. Ashkenazi, scheduled to meet with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, was expected to have brought new Israeli intelligence on Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs.

But the diplomatic sources said the administration made it clear that nobody in a policy-making position was available to sit with Ashkenazi. This included the president, Vice President Joseph Biden, Gates, National Intelligence director Dennis Blair or Mullen.

Ashkenazi has obtained a meeting with National Security Advisor James Jones. But the sources said the meeting would focus on U.S. demands for Israel to ease military restrictions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

“The Obama administration believes that Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel’s disagreements with its neighbors are resolved,” former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said.

Bolton envisioned that the White House would pressure Israel to legitimize Hamas and Hizbullah. At the same time, he said, Obama would continue to woo Iran.

Already, economic and diplomatic advisers to Obama have urged the president to launch a U.S. dialogue with Hamas. The US/Middle East Project, which includes such Obama supporters as former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Hagel, was said to have elicited a promise from Obama to listen to any proposals made by Hamas.

“The main gist is that you need to push hard on the Palestinian peace process,” former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft said. “Don’t move it to the end of your agenda and say you have too much to do. And the U.S. needs to have a position, not just hold their coats while they sit down.”

The Israeli chief of staff has also scheduled a session with Dennis Ross, the special adviser on Iran to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But the sources said Ross was not regarded as being in a policy-making role.

The diplomatic sources said the White House and the senior echelon of the Obama administration have refused a dialogue with Israel on the Iranian threat. They said Ms. Clinton, during her visit to Israel, was largely silent during briefings by Israeli intelligence on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

During her visit, Ms. Clinton received written recommendations on U.S. policy toward Iran from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. The U.S. secretary said the recommendations would be relayed to the White House.

“The Israeli government and military have been alarmed by the rapid and dramatic reversal in the U.S. policy toward Iran,” the source said. “This reversal took place without any consultation with Israel, Gulf Arab countries or even Congress.”

The sources said Israel has sought a U.S. commitment to limit its dialogue with Iran. Israel has also urged Obama to make it clear that the military option against Iran’s nuclear program exists.

But Obama and his top aides appear uninterested in hearing Israel’s position. The sources said a key aim of Ashkenazi was to urge the administration to release weapons and systems long sought by Israel in the area of aerial refueling, air-to-ground weapons, sensors as well as the F-22 fighter-jet.

In 2008, under the Bush administration, Gates and then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice blocked U.S. requests for these military systems. The sources said Gates and Ms. Rice concluded that Israel could use this equipment for an air strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities.

“Ashkenazi sees this U.S. refusal as what has been undermining Israeli deterrence toward Iran and boosting the confidence of the Teheran regime,” the source said. “The mullahs in regime have concluded that America has dropped the military option and won’t allow such an option to Israel.”


Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities

Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities

Our skewed world view won’t let us see the real Pakistan

Our skewed world view won’t let us see the real Pakistan

Dozens of interviews with senior western generals, diplomats and officials in Kabul last week have shown me how deeply the years of conflict and “nation-building” have dented confidence in our ability to transplant western values. Our interest in Afghanistan has been reduced to preventing it from becoming a platform for threats to the west. In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, the west has glimpsed the limits to its power and to the supposedly universal attraction of its values.

The west’s dreams of a comfortable post-Cold War era have been rudely shaken. We have been forced reluctantly to accept the independence and influence of China and Russia. These are countries that we recognise as difficult international actors pursuing agendas popular with substantial proportions of their citizens. Other countries, particularly those less troubled than Pakistan or Afghanistan, are likely soon to join that list. [continued…]

The author stops short of indentifying the root causes of what he calls ’our skewed world vision.” The solution of the skewed world vision doesn’t lie in invading country after country and supporting tyrant after tyrant. The solution lies in recognizing the fact that their lie extremist totalitarians in the colonailist capitals, who mission is total global domination at any cost. The solution lies in recognizing the fact that the media, academia, religious and political arena – everything and almost everyone who matters is held hostage by the warlords, their propaganda, lies and deceptions. They are poise. They are civilised. Their war is a good war. Their torture is just torture. Doesn’t matter if their totalitarian adventures killed 1,320,110 Iraqis and made homeless another 4 million Iraqis, out of 27 million. Doesn’t matter is thousands of Iraqi women have been widowed by the war imposed through lies and deceptions. Doesn’t matter if this is the state of Iraq as a result of the US warlords’s fooling the world for going into war. All this was only for loot and plunder and neutralizing a country that the warlords consider could become a threat in their expansionist designs.

Yet the skewed world view accepts Sudanese president to be dragged to teh world court, but no one talks about the the human suffering Bush and Cheney have caused in Iraq and Afghansitan.

The lies and deceptions from the warlords int he US didn’t stop. They kept lying that the US was fighting “al-Qaeda” in Iraq as opposed to just Iraqis. Cheney and Bush even claim that they made Iraqi womens’ lives better. What values can one expect these warlords to be advancing in the occupied lands.

The real problem of this skewed mindset lies in the colonial mindset that wants the world to toe the line without questioning.

Obama administration took charge with a slight change to the approach, not the mindset. It is plannin gto used ”carrots and sticks” to test the “troublemakers” and see if they are really able to have a meaningful political dialogue and eventually change their ways according to the will of the colonial warlords.

The unspoken subtext in such an attitude is that you have to deal with these countries and groups like you deal with a donkey you are trying to train – hit them when they misbehave, and feed them to entice them to follow your lead.

The “carrots-and-sticks” approach is only a mildly different version of the previous policy of lying through your teeth, threatening to death, imposing genocidal sanctions, and going for regime change through wars and occupations. Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star concludes:

The new approach will definitely fail, as the former policy failed, because it is based on the assumption that the policies and approach of the U.S.-led camp is legal, righteous and generous, and that this camp defines the rules that others in the world must abide by.

Criminal Unhelpfulness

Criminal Unhelpfulness

by Rami G. Khouri Released: 18 Mar 2009

BEIRUT — If rhetoric is the first step towards action, then one of the rhetorical trends of our time that indicates a giant step backwards towards inaction is the American and European tendency to describe Israel’s aggressive and illegal actions in the occupied Palestinian territories in increasingly soft and imprecise terms.

For years, the US government used to call the Israeli settlements “illegal” and an “obstacle to peace,” but in recent years those terms have been replaced by a mere “unhelpful.” On her first official trip to the region earlier this month US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton referred to the Israeli demolition of Palestinian Arab homes in East Jerusalem as “unhelpful.” Earlier this week, the European Union presidency said that Israel’s demolition of homes in the Silwan neighborhood of Jerusalem “threatens the viability of a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement, in conformity with international law.”

If I were the Israeli government, I would be laughing all the way to my next colonial adventure in destroying Palestinian homes and infrastructure, uprooting Palestinian Arabs and replacing them with imported settlers from Israel, or Brooklyn, or Russia, or from wherever the world’s longest running modern colonization venture gets its human ammunition and reinforcements. It is bad enough when two of the world’s most powerful governments pull back from their previous positions of branding Israel’s contraventions of international law and UN resolutions as illegal and impermissible and instead call them “unhelpful” or just a threat to a lasting settlement. It is infinitely worse when the United States and the EU spend half their waking hours trying to spread democracy and the rule of law to the rest of the world while watering down a central Israeli contravention of the rule of international law. t Israel must be quietly and comfortably amused at every American and European official in sight.

The rhetorical downgrading of Israel’s criminality is a problem in many respects — assuming that it is still OK to use the word criminality to describe the contravening of the law. That, at least, is what my beloved British and American teachers in primary and high school taught me when I learned English: Use the precise, accurate word when you have it at hand, and do not beat around the bush. Clarity is good for communication.

The first problem with Western obsequiousness before Israel’s intimidation is that it perpetuates the Zionist colonial enterprise in a manner that is harmful to all concerned, including Israelis and Palestinians of course, but also Westerners who end up being sucked into our maelstrom of violence. The second problem is that it helps to disqualify the United States, the EU and others who share their position — such as the UN, increasingly — from playing the role of active, credible mediator. Arabs and Israelis cannot solve their conflict on their own, and mediation by the Turks or Egyptians can only move things forward so much. A permanent, comprehensive negotiated peace agreement requires intensive American and European involvement in negotiations, in consummating an agreement, in peace-keeping, and in promoting post-peace economic growth. This is impossible if the US and EU have no credibility.

A third problem with the cowardice of sheltering in the safe world of “unhelpful” rather than “illegal and impermissible” Israeli colonies is that those Western powers who choose this route send a terrible message: They have been denying and ignoring the rule of law when it comes to Israeli actions over more than four decades, but enthusiastically preach and promote the rule of law when it comes to their aspirations to transform the Arab and Islamic world. A little bit of hypocrisy is standard fare for politicians; but when this has been elevated to the level of official policy that transcends administrations, decades and then generations, it enters the realm of the pathological.

Great powers and noble organizations that disrespect their own rules are not so great in the eyes of a bewildered world that thought that decolonization concluded about half a century ago, but wakes up every morning to find itself the continuing victim of new forms of criminal colonization — in the form of Zionist-Israeli settlers, or Western diplomats whose forked tongues make them resemble rattlesnakes walking on two feet.

Colonialism is either legal or illegal, acceptable or criminal. Laws matter, or they don’t matter. There is no such thing as “unhelpful” colonialism, any more than there is merely naughty rape, awkward murder, or unfortunate incest. Why is it that those in the West who celebrate and seek to export their commitment to the rule of law find it so hard to adopt both the rhetoric and policies that acknowledge the criminal illegality and political catastrophe that is the modern and continuing Israeli colonial rampage?

What is it that makes giants in the West become eunuchs in the face of Israeli deeds?

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.

Copyright © 2009 Rami G. Khouri – distributed by Agence Global

Isolating Islamists just won’t work

Isolating Islamists just won’t work

By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star staff

The news earlier this week was a sign of the times, and of the days ahead: the British government said it was resuming contacts with the political wing of Hizbullah, and the Obama administration said it was interested in exploring contacts with “moderates” among the Taliban in Afghanistan who might be separated from the extremists allied with Al-Qaeda.

These developments highlight a question that will surely prove to be a central issue in the months and years ahead: How do Western and other governments who see themselves as law-abiding, God-fearing, and righteous connect with, or even negotiate with, armed

militant movements that defy, challenge and occasionally attack these governments’ local allies and surrogates?

The Taliban and Hizbullah are two very different movements, reflecting diverse national contexts, aims, tactics and degrees of legitimacy. They are only two of dozens of other such groups around the Arab and Asian region that are viewed negatively and shunned by the United States, most other Western states, Israel, and many Arab countries, but enjoy substantial support in their own countries and around the region. Islamist groups, political parties, militias, rebel movements, tribal movements, insurgent forces, and occasional semi-criminal gangs traditionally had been strictly shunned or actively fought by the American-led camp that liked to speak of itself as the guardian of universal enlightened values. American presidents and other allies, clients and surrogates often said that groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, the Taliban, and even some shunned governments who wished to join “the civilized world” and the “community of nations” had to change their ways and stop opposing or fighting the US-led camp.

It is now obvious that this once strict policy of isolating and opposing Islamist and other militant groups until they unilaterally changed their ways has not worked, and will not work. One of the most important political lessons of the past decade or so has been the failure of sanctions and threats that aimed to change the policies of target movements or governments. Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran in particular have been targeted by the US, Israel, and elements of the European Union and the United Nations system; but they have largely ignored the sanctions and threats, and have persisted in their policies. The wisdom or stupidity of such a response will become ever more obvious. For the moment, all we can conclude is that punitive sanctions and threats do not work very well, and should be replaced by more effective approaches

The initial signals from the Obama administration suggest it understands this and is probing for other means of dealing with or politically engaging governments and movements that it had traditionally confronted or tried to isolate. Obama himself has spoken of affirming “respect and mutual interests” as guiding principles for dealing with those whom the US sees as foes or mere troublemakers. This approach has elicited positive initial responses from some of those target groups, and it is very likely that we will see serious political discussions soon among the US, Syria and Iran.

While this shift in American and British attitudes is positive, sensible and to be applauded, the lingering danger is that some in the US and the West will offset their neo-rationalism with a resurgent Orientalism – in other words they will say that “carrots and sticks” should be used to test the troublemakers and see if they are really able to have a meaningful political dialogue and eventually change their ways. The unspoken subtext in such an attitude is that you have to deal with these countries and groups as if you were dealing with animal you are trying to train: Hit them when they misbehave, and feed them to entice them to follow your lead.

The “carrots-and-sticks” approach is only a mildly different version of the previous policy of threats, attacks, sanctions and regime change. It will fail, as the former policy failed, because it is based on the assumption that the policies and approach of the US-led camp is legal, righteous and generous, and that this camp defines the rules that others in the world must abide by. This is very similar to the dynamics that defined the colonial era, which, thankfully, largely ended half a century ago – with the exception of lingering threads such as this approach to those who remain defiant in the Arab-Asian world.

Despite these misgivings, some signs of change are in the air, and they are encouraging. How far they will go and what impact they will have remain unclear. Rhetoric is the first step to action, so adversaries talking to each other is a good start, and could lead to changes in policies that reduce tensions and promote mutual well-being.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice-weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of the World’s Media

Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of the World’s Media

Jump to Comments

The power of lies, deceptions and disinformation as Americans pay the price of collective stupidity.

“You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel…”

Facts of Jewish Media Control

Electronic News & Entertainment Media


The largest media conglomerate today is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney Empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as a “control freak”, includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television), its own cable network with 14 million subscribers, and two video production companies. As for feature films, the Walt Disney Picture Group, headed by Joe Roth (also a Jew), includes Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers. When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, under Eisner, the company has expanded into the production of graphic sex and violence. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies. ABC’s cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, a Jew. This corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and the Arts & Entertainment Network cable companies. ABC Radio Network owns eleven AM and ten FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates. Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1994. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications, Chilton Publications, and the Diversified Publishing Group. Time Warner, Inc, is the second of the international media leviathans. The chairman of the board and CEO, Gerald Levin, is a Jew. Time Warner’s subsidiary HBO is the country’s largest pay-TV cable network. Warner Music is by far the world’s largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records, headed by Danny Goldberg. Stuart Hersch is president of Warnervision, Warner Music’s video production unit. Goldberg and Hersch are Jews. Warner Music was an early promoter of “gangsta rap.” Through its involvement with Interscope Records, it helped popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites. In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio) and publishing. Time Warner’s publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune). When Ted Turner, a Gentile, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman William Paley (real name Palinsky, a Jew) and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews. To block Turner’s bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a “friendly” takeover of the company, and from 1986 till 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network have been obstructed by Levin’s Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals. Viacom, Inc, headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), a Jew, is the third largest megamedia corporation in the country, with revenues of over $10 billion a year. Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 12 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Its publishing division includes Prentice Hall, Simon & Schuster, and Pocket Books. It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster stores. Viacom’s chief claim to fame, however, is as the world’s largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989, MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the younger television audience. With the top three, and by far the largest, media companies in the hand of Jews, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part. What about the other big media companies? Number four on the list is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox Television and 20th Century Fox Films. Murdoch is a Gentile, but Peter Chermin, who heads Murdoch’s film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew. Number five is the Japanese Sony Corporation, whose U.S. subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, is run by Michael Schulhof, a Jew. Alan Levine, another Jew, heads the Sony Pictures division. Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as “the premiere independent TV program producer in the United States,” is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew. The best known of the smaller media companies, Dreamworks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. Dream Works was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Two other large production companies, MCA and Universal Pictures, are both owned by Seagram Company, Ltd. The president and CEO of Seagram, the liquor giant, is Edgar Bronfman Jr., who is also president of the World Jewish Congress. It is well known that Jews have controlled the production and distribution of films since the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century. This is still the case today. Films produced by just the five largest motion picture companies mentioned above-Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram)-accounted for 74 per cent of the total box-office receipts for the first eight months of 1995. The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson, CBS first by William Paley and then by Lawrence Tisch, and NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert. Over periods of several decades, these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong. As noted, ABC is part of Eisner’s Disney Company, and the executive producers of ABC’s news programs are all Jews: Victor Neufeld (20-20), Bob Reichbloom (Good Morning America), and Rick Kaplan (World News Tonight). CBS was recently purchased by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Nevertheless, the man appointed by Lawrence Tisch, Eric Ober, remains president of CBS News, and Ober is a Jew. At NBC, now owned by General Electric, NBC News president Andrew Lack is a Jew, as are executive producers Jeff Zucker (Today), Jeff Gralnick (NBC Nightly News), and Neal Shapiro (Dateline). The Print Media After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1,500 different publications. One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against Jewish control and distortion. However, this is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of our interests than a casual observer would think. The days when most cities and even towns had several independently owned newspapers published by local people with close ties to the community are gone. Today, most “local” newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or ever thousands of miles away. The fact is that only about 25 per cent of the country’s 1,500 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest depend on these few for all of their national and international news. The Newhouse empire of Jewish brothers Samuel and Donald Newhouse provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America’s daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip. The Newhouses own 26 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation’s largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsidiaries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country’s largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madmoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride’s, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group. This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers are not supported by their subscribers, but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue–not the small change collected from a newspaper’s readers–that largely pays the editor’s salary and yields the owner’s profit. Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the beginning of the 20th century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers–primarily as a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants. Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Three Jewish Newspapers

The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America’s newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation’s three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America’s financial and political capitals, are the newspapers which set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn’t, at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it, and all three newspapers are in Jewish hands. The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones’s estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper’s current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld. Both of the latter are also Jews. The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe; twelve magazines, including McCall’s and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines. Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its “leaks” throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government. The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John McLean, and later inherited by Edward McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier. The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer’s daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co. In 1979, she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co. The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines, most notably the nation’s number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation’s largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation which also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron’s, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. Most of New York’s other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News is owned by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm.

Other Mass Media

The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any note published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a susidiary of Time Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew. Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million. U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.3 million, is owned and published by Mortimer Zuckerman, a Jew. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York’s tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country. Among the giant book-publishing conglomerates, the situation is also Jewish. Three of the six largest book publishers in the U.S., according to Publisher’s Weekly, are owned or controlled by Jews. The three are first-place Random House (with its many subsidiaries, including Crown Publishing Group), third-place Simon & Schuster, and sixth-place Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books and Little, Brown). Another publisher of special significance is Western Publishing. Although it ranks only 13th in size among all U.S. publishers, it ranks first among publishers of children’s books, with more than 50 percent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, a Jew, who just replaced Richard Bernstein, also a Jew.

The Effect of Jewish Control of the Media

These are the facts of Jewish media control in America. Anyone willing to spend several hours in a large library can verify their accuracy. I hope that these facts are disturbing to you, to say the least. Should any minority be allowed to wield such awesome power? Certainly, not and allowing a people with beliefs such as expressed in the Talmud, to determine what we get to read or watch in effect gives this small minority the power to mold our minds to suit their own Talmudic interests, interests which as we have demonstrated are diametrically opposed to the interests of our people. By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media, we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by their parents, their schools, or any other influence.

Additional Research:

Zionist, Jewish Hollywood’s Brainwashing Of America

How Jewish is Hollywood?

Talal Bugti Wants Trial of Musharraf

Talal Bugti Wants Trial of Musharraf

By Mumtaz Alvi

Islamabad, Pakistan, 17 March 2009 (The News) – Welcoming the [PPP]
Government’s decision to reinstate the sacked judges, the Jamhoori
Watan Party [JWP] said it is considering filing a case in the apex
court against former [unconstitutional, illegal and self-appointed]
president Pervez Musharraf for the murder of Akbar Bugti and the
military operation in Balochistan.

Talking to The News from Quetta, JWP President and son of the late
Akbar Bugti, Talal Bugti, said he is happy over dream-like
developments that took place in the wee hours of Monday.

“We would be consulting legal experts to sue Musharraf, certain top
officials of the secret agencies, ex-Governor Owais Ghani and the DCO
Dera Bugti for assassination of ex-Chief Minister [Akbar Bugti] of the
[Baluchistan] province,” he said.

“Let Chief Justice Iftikhar [Muhammad] Chaudhry take over, by that
time, we will hopefully finish consultations to approach the Supreme
Court for justice to the people of Balochistan in connection with the
military operation,” the JWP leader maintained.

In reply to a question, Talal Bugti said, apart from the murder of his
father Akbar Bugti, Musharraf is also responsible for the killing of
popular [PPP] leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Balaj
Marri and hundreds of other innocent men, women and even children in
Balochistan and elsewhere [across Pakistan].

The JWP leader said that a few months back he had visited Islamabad
and held meetings with the top leadership and Adviser on Interior to
Prime Minister Rehman [Shaitan] Malik. “I was assured by the Adviser
that very shortly a case will be filed against Musharraf for the
assassination of PPP leader Benazir Bhutto besides the murder of Akbar
Bugti,” he claimed.

The Adviser on Interior was not available for comments when this
correspondent tried to get his viewpoint on this particular point.

Talal Bugti welcomed that there was a lot of talk about the supremacy
of Parliament and the rule of law, but asked why General (retd.)
Musharraf should not be held accountable for his misdeeds [barbarous
crimes], including October 12, 1999 coup.

In reply to the allegations that many youth of Balochistan were going
to Afghanistan and getting training in warfare, he asked what else
they would do when they were not being treated as equal citizens of
Pakistan. He again called for trying Musharraf under [High Treason]
Article 6 of the [Pakistan] Constitution for his [illegal] actions
ranging from the abrogation of the Constitution and grossly harming
the national interests.