Israel/Palestine

Columnist Jemima Imran Khan talks about the influence of the Jewish-controlled media.

Generally, I am sceptical about conspiracy theories. However, the current furore in the Muslim world surrounding Western media coverage of recent events in the Middle East is, in my opinion, justified. Two particular incidents have been as revealing for me as they are horrifying.

Millions of us watched in horrified disbelief as Israeli soldiers shot a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Mohammad Al-Durra, in cold blood. We watched the boy’s father vainly trying to shield his cowering son, desperately begging the assassins to hold fire. Equally shocking was the pointless murder of the Palestinian ambulance driver who arrived to help the man and his by then lifeless son. The next ambulance driver was shot at again, but this time he survived and managed to transport them to hospital. I watched this on Sky News, BBC, CNN and Fox News. All four channels reported that the boy was caught in crossfire. This was blatantly untrue and the captured images, always more powerful than words, showed clearly that the firing was one-sided and unprovoked. The Palestinians claim that father and son had innocently gone to Gaza in search of a car. Israel claims they were violent protesters. But let’s be clear on one thing: even if they were violent protesters, since when did the hurling of rocks warrant gunfire? I remember being equally appalled by television images five years ago when a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a fast food restaurant in Israel packed with children. But the difference is that in that instance those reporting the blast were as outspokenly horrified by the images of mutilated children’s bodies as I was. And there was no attempt either by the media to blame the Israelis for provocation or any public justification of the attack by the Palestinians. Now, however, far from condemning this brutal public execution of a young boy, I was amazed to read in the Western press that actually condemned the Palestinians for “sending their children out to die” for the sake of “scoring media points.” Worse still, they labelled Mohammad Al Durra “a trouble maker” who had brought it all upon himself. Similarly, when the Palestinian Ministry of Education decided to temporarily close down schools to minimise the vulnerability of students to attack to and from school, it was immediately seized upon as proof that they were indeed encouraging their children to go out and riot. How does that explain the shooting of Sara Abdel-Athim-Hassam, an 18-month old baby girl, in the back seat of her father’s car? Neither does it explain how Mu’ayyad Al-Jawarish, another 12-year old boy, was shot in the garden of his own home.

Fox News then broadcast a shockingly unprofessional and biased interview (‘We report. You decide’) in which repeatedly accused the Palestinian Ambassador to the US of lying when he tried to explain that it was essentially a one-sided onslaught. The more he attempted to illustrate that the numbers were not consistent with the repeated reports of ‘Palestinian acts of violence’ and that rocks hardly equate with bullets, rockets and artillery (123 Palestinian fatalities, 4,000 Palestinian causalities, compared to six Israeli fatalities) the angrier, ruder and more aggressive she became.

This brings me to the second incident. Two undercover agents belonging to the Israeli hit squads were filmed being brutally killed by Palestinian protesters. It made shocking viewing. The news channels repeatedly reiterated the Israeli claim that the soldiers had “got lost” and had mistakenly “strayed into Ramallah” where they were subsequently “lynched by the Palestinian mob.” This sounds highly unlikely even to the most uninformed and naive observer, let alone to seasoned reporters, and yet this version of events seems to have become the one most widely accepted as fact. The truth is that Ramallah is a city under total Israeli military siege and was completely blockaded except for one entrance that is entirely under the control of Israeli military checkpoints. It would have been virtually impossible for the two Israeli agents to stray unwittingly into Palestinian territory, as claimed. They were clearly infiltrated deliberately into the midst of a protest march in the city centre. The occasion was the funeral of a Palestinian man who had been abducted by Israeli settlers and tortured to death. Most of the participants knew the victim and many had even seen his mutilated body, so naturally emotions were running high. The two undercover Israeli agents who had infiltrated the march were immediately recognised as outsiders and hit squad members. Despite the fact that the Palestinian police attempted to protect them, the two were leapt upon and brutally killed before the cameras. This was presented immediately as justification for subsequent Israeli aerial attacks and increased blockades and proof that it was, as has always been claimed by the Israelis, indeed a two-sided war in which the Palestinians were the provocateurs.

No one can condone the frenzied killing of the two Israeli soldiers. But why is it that Madeleine Albright, who persistently refers to “violence on both sides” (as if one of the most powerful and best equipped armies in the world is at par with stone throwing youth) presented her immediate condolence to the families of the two Israeli soldiers yet a fortnight has passed without any such comments for the families of the dozens of Palestinian civilians who have also been killed? Why such one-sided condemnation?

The answer to these and many other questions plaguing Muslims the world over becomes abundantly clear if we take one look at the build-up to the American presidential elections. In one of their first debates Gore and Bush were forced to compete in almost farcical fashion over who would be more loyal to Israel, if elected. Gore, the clear winner in that particular contest, when asked what he would do to bring about peace in the Middle East, answered that he would put pressure on Arafat to stop “provocative acts of violence”. Speaking of provocation he seems to have conveniently forgotten the initial visit on September 28th by the hard liner Ariel Sharon of Sabra and Shatila fame to the Al-Aqsa mosque that sparkedd off the Palestinian protest in the first place. Gore told the Council of Presidents a Major American Jewish Organisations that despite the necessity of supporting the US government position on when to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, his personal views “are the same as yours.” Asked what he would do if the Palestinians establihsed a separate state outside the peace process, Gore replied, “I would consult with the government of Israel to see what the most helpful response from Israel’s view might be.” Gore has built his entire career on support from the Jewish lobby. The Washington-based Israeli diplomat, Amos Elran, writing in the Israeli daily Maariv, stated: “Israel would feel much safer with Gore as [Clinton’s] successor. Gore’s true feelings of friendship for Israel have withstood the test of time.” Furthermore, Gore’ vice presidential running mate Joseph Lieberman’s support for Israel is not just a matter of practical politics but rather a fundamental personal value. Then, in a complete U-turn and in her election campaign for the Senate, Hillary Clinton, who only a year and a half ago called for a Palestinian state, has now condemned the US for abstaining from the Security Council’s resolution against Israeli violence, and even appeared at a pro-Israeli demonstration. Moreover, she has vowed to return $ 50,000 dollars from members of the American Muslim Alliance because of “offensive and outrageous” statements, as she put it, attributed to members of the Alliance supporting the right of Palestinians to use “armed resistance” against Israel. And let’s not to forget the recent non-binding resolution passed by an overwhelming vote in the US House condemning the Palestinians for the violence and expressing the House’s “solidarity with the state of Israel and people of Israel at this time of crisis.”

The Israeli media have often referred to Clinton as the most pro-Israeli president ever. Israel gets $ 4 billion in aid from the US, more than the rest of the world combined. The reason is that the Jewish lobby is rich, powerful and influential. An annual poll of professional lobbyists by Fortune magazine revealed the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as the second most powerful lobby in the US. Jews provide well over half the political donations to Democratic candidates. They also provide a significant share of Republican donations, although these are less essential as Republicans can turn to business and other lobbies. Co-ordinated, heavy political donations plus a history of bloc voting for the most pro-Israeli presidential candidate has paid off well. Additionally, the media is controlled by the Jews, as is most of Hollywood. As Pat Buchanan once said: “Congress is Israel occupied territory.”

Jews account for more than half of the top foreign policy making jobsin the Clinton administration. None of this would matter if the Muslims were equally powerful and well represented. No one can deny that the Jews have been remarkably successful as a race in the face of historic adversity and suffering. But the point is, with such huge Jewish influence in politics and media, how can America hope to be accepted as honest brokers in this conflict? The more perceived injustice that is witnessed, the more the level of reactionary fundamentalism will increase, a prospect which is potentially much more frightening and destabilising for the Americans than the wrath of the Zionist lobby. To illustrate, driving to pick up my son from school I was horrified, but not in the least surprised, to see a freshly painted red sign on a wall saying: “Kill all Jews.... Jihad.” And a statement has just been issued from the London-based Islamist Abu Hamza Al Masri that “all Jews and Americans have now become targets in Muslim lands as a result of American policy.” Abhorrent as this kind of extremism may be, it is a direct result of what Muslims see as gross injustice and, as things stand, the situation can only get worse. Many of my friends are Jewish, as was my paternal grandfather, and the sad part is that I know the majority of them desperately want peace in the Middle East. But that peace can only be achieved once America is perceived as an honest broker and once the American media fulfils its role as an impartial commentator. This is not just a Middle East conflict. It affects millions of people around the world. Continued disharmony there will undoubtedly lead to future conflicts.