[Imc-uk-features] 'New anti-semitism' redux was: unhiding 375471

[freethepeeps at aktivix.org]

Quoting startx <startx at plentyfact.org>:

> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:59:43 +0100
> startx <startx at plentyfact.org> wrote:
> 
> > 375471 - 2007-07-09 19:56 startx hide - blog style comment on tv
> > documentation
> 
> if hidden that before.
> 
> after being accused of using mc carthy methods i hereby unhide the 
> crap again. i didnt expect that a tv programm comment makes it into the
> newswire, especially not those stating that "he pro zionists lobby
> already have a vice like control on much of the world's media".
> 
> i dont want to be responsible for that, but it seems to be wanted,
> so what.
> 
> startx.
> 

The full quote and the context are not revealed in that excerpt of the post -
and there was debate going about this article on irc when it was summarily
hidden.

The very fact that Littlejohn has latched onto the "new anti semitism"(which is
what the post is about:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=466785&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=322)
opens up those who support the thesis of the new anti-semitism to the very same
charge that is levelled at those who don't - ie that they are from the same
school as bigots who have similar views.

The comment was qualified by this:

"which is why the desperate plight of the Palestinians is allowed to continue."


and by now, no-one should be left in any doubt as to the well documented  fact
that there is a concerted and well funded Hasbarah campaign to smear any organ
or person who speaks out against the brutality of the Israeli Occupation.

Disparity in the way that the Israel/Palestinian conflict is reported in the
mainstream media is widely documented - and the repressed report by Malclom
Balens into the BBC's coverage is one example, whilst the Glasgow University
Media Group's study is another of how UK media reporting of the conflict is
distorted and decontextualised in Israel's favour.

It is a complete strawman to say that because the protocols said the same thing
as the decontextualised excerpt presented by startx, that this is the same
thinking - and in fact this was not the original reason presented by startx for
wanting the article hidden - his reason was to do with it being comment/ and
being a tv blog. 

However, there has to be some newsworthiness in Channel 4 allowing Littlejohn to
attack the uk left by accusing them of a hotly contested concept such as "the
new anti-semitism" and this programme is likely to have an effect on
pro-Palestinian activists and cause something of a backlash for campaigns, and
that was the discussion that was taking place before the premature hiding.

There is some irony in accusing the author of anti-semitism .....

Perhaps Anne Elk will now remorph into nim chimsky to repeat Littlejohn's
strawman.

best 

ftp