It's not what you think

By Justin Raimondo* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Illustration by J.D. Crowe

One would think that after nine years at least some of the anger, the horror and shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks would have dissipated: but no. A glimpse at the headlines, a few days before the somber anniversary, disabuses us of this hopeful notion: a crazed pastor out in the boonies somewhere is burning Korans, and the commander of our forces in Afghanistan feels compelled to respond, as does the President. The proposal to build a Muslim community center blocks from "ground zero" - modeled on Jewish community centers ubiquitous in New York - is met with furious opposition, and the "anti-Islamization" movement spearheaded by bigots takes off, with mosques all over the country under attack. Physical attacks on Muslims, or people perceived as Muslim, escalate: a New York City cabbie is assaulted by a crazed Islamophobe, and people who have lived in this country for the whole of their lives are afraid.

What's going on? Andrew Sullivan, writing on his popular blog, writes he is "at a loss to understand why so many have reacted so ferociously to this project." After all, Imam Feisel Rauf, the Muslim cleric who wants to build Cordoba House, is a moderate who has condemned Islamic extremism: Rauf was sent by the Bush administration overseas to act as an ambassador of good will to Muslim countries. So where is the ferocity coming from?

To find the answer to this question, we just have to follow the money, and thankfully Ken Vogel and Giovanni Russonello over at Politico have done just that. After detailing the money coming into the Cordoba House project from mainstream donors like the Rockefellers, they write:

"There's also big money behind the mosque opposition, as highlighted by the relationship between [David] Horowitz's Los Angeles-based nonprofit, Jihad Watch - the website run by Spencer "dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world" - and Joyce Chernick, the wife of a wealthy California tech company founder.

"Though it was not listed on the public tax reports filed by Horowitz's Freedom Center, Politico has confirmed that the lion's share of the $920,000 it provided over the past three years to Jihad Watch came from Chernick, whose husband, Aubrey Chernick, has a net worth of $750 million, as a result of his 2004 sale to IBM of a software company he created, and a security consulting firm he now owns.

"A onetime trustee of the ...Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Aubrey Chernick led the effort to pull together $3.5 million in venture capital to start Pajamas Media, a conservative blog network ...

"The David Horowitz Freedom Center had a budget of $4.5 million last year, according to its tax filings, of which $290,000 came from the conservative Bradley Foundation, which also gave $75,000 to the Center for Security Policy last year. Horowitz has received an average of $461,000 a year in salary and benefits over the past three years, while Spencer has pulled in an average of $140,000, according to the center's IRS filings."

Laura Rozen follows up on her Politico blog, detailing the trail of donations from 2008 990 filings for Chernick's charitable foundation, the Fairbrook Foundation, listing all the familiar suspects - CAMERA, Horowitz, MEMRI, Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, the Israeli nationalist "Stand With Us" campus project - and a few less familiar, such as the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim, dedicated to thwarting our stated policy of no more settlements where it counts: in East Jerusalem.

Millions pour into the coffers of these groups, all of which are dedicated to one overriding principle, one goal: advancing Israel's national interests in the US. The serpentine convolutions of the Chernick connection, linking one front group to another, encircle the political and temperamental spectrum, ranging from the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles (over $900k) to the many hundreds of thousands given to hardline neoconservative outfits like the Hudson Institute, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, not to mention Pajamas Media ($7 million, in collusion with venture capitalist James "extensively experienced in multimillion-dollar technology transfer and license agreements " Koshland) and a mass campaign to distribute DVDs of the virulently anti-Muslim film "Obsession."

The aim of all this giving is to create and sustain an obsessive hatred of Muslims, all Muslims, and garner support for Israel. The fulminations of Newt Gingrich and the flaxwn-haired harpies of Fox News, who rail against the "ground zero mosque" seem, on the surface, to make no sense. Are they really saying that they want the US to declare war on the billion-plus Muslims who inhabit the planet earth? This, after all, is precisely what Osama bin Laden has repeatedly said: that all the world's Muslims must unite under al-Qaeda's bloody banner because the West, in alliance with Israel, is out to destroy Islam, and it is therefore the duty of the faithful to wage jihad against the US.

The Israelis, having long ago declared war on all the other nations of the region, want us in their camp, and that is precisely what occurred with stunning speed before the smoke cleared from the site where the World Trade Center once stood. "We're all Israelis now!" exulted Martin "Palestinians are subhuman" Peretz, over at The New Republic. Benjamin Netanyahu, who is today the Prime Minister of Israel, told an audience at Bar Ilan University "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," according to the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv. The attack, he averred, "swung American public opinion in our favor" - and now that he and his fellow extremists are in power in Tel Aviv, they are making sure public opinion stays in their favor.

The craziness that ensued in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks had to be sustained if Israel was to take full advantage of the moment - a moment their intelligence operatives anticipated, according to Fox News, in a four-part series by their topnotch journalist Carl Cameron, which started out as follows:

"Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.

"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins." But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"

Fox News has never retracted a word of this story, although they did - after pressure from the Israel lobby - delete it from their web site. It was never mentioned again, at least in "respectable" quarters, and, to be sure, it was never forgotten, thanks to the Internet, where Carl Cameron will be exposing the Israeli connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks unto eternity.

Cameron's noting that "more than sixty" Israelis had been arrested immediately after 9/11, along with and under the same legal rubric as thousands of Arabs, had also been noted here in this space, before the Fox News broadcasts. Why, I asked in a column, was the US government rounding up Israelis, of all people - unless there was some kind of Israeli connection to the attacks? The answer came in Cameron's reporting, and subsequent stories in the "mainstream" media: the Israelis, whose intelligence services had been very active on our soil in the months leading up to 9/11, had been following the hijackers, shadowing their every move, without telling us - almost as if they were protecting them rather than trying to stop them.

What happened on September 11, 2001, has changed the shape of history, and certainly determined the utterly disastrous course of US foreign policy since that day. We have launched a war of retribution against the entire Muslim world, a vast campaign of bombings, drone attacks, occupation, and terror unleashed on the peoples of the Middle East, from Iraq to Pakistan. This is precisely why the Israelis didn't tell us what Mohammed Atta and his co-conspirators were up to, although - if we take Fox News seriously, and I realize there are plenty who don't - there is no doubt that they had it in their power to stop the whole operation before the hijackers had a chance to strike. All they had to do was tell us - and they didn't. This is the "intelligence failure" - not the lack of centralized information, not the competition between the CIA and the FBI - that made the 9/11 terrorist attacks possible: the perfidy of our Israeli "ally."

The Israelis didn't dive-bomb the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with commandeered airliners: Atta and his gang did. Yet they could have prevented it - but why should they have? After all, the attacks have swung public opinion in their favor, as Netanyahu boasted - surely a foreseeable development.

Today, nine years after the event, the Israel lobby is using the anniversary of the attacks to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria to a fever pitch, and they have plenty of bucks to do it. These people - who, as Juan Cole points out, represent a minuscule fraction of the pro-Israel population in the US, and stand out like a couple of sore thumbs from the overwhelmingly liberal Jewish community - mean business, and there's only one way to fight them. It's time to play hardball - just like they do.

I was warned, before raising the possibility of an Israeli connection to 9/11, that I was touching a live wire, that my career - such as it is - would be destroyed, and that I would be banished to the hinterlands, where various obsessives trade conspiracy theories and argue over whether it's the Bilderbergers or the Illuminati who control the world.

It hasn't happened, but I wouldn't care if it did. As Ayn Rand once said: I'm not brave enough to be a coward - I see the consequences too clearly. We see the consequences of 9/11 all around us, in the hate-wrinkled face of the Koran-burning preacher, in the shrill shrieking of Pamela Geller whose anti-Muslim rallies in the vanished shadow of the Trade Towers are as ugly as she is: we see it in the faces of Pakistani refugees, huddled in disease-infested camps, as they flee the US invasion of death-dealing drones.

Think about it: the leadership of a nation that betrayed us, that watched, impassively - or, perhaps, gleefully - as Islamist terrorists wreaked deadly havoc on our two biggest cities, has a vast and well-funded propaganda network in this country dedicated to stoking hatred of Muslims. And they are certainly doing a very good job of it.

How do they get away with it?

So, you want to know the "meaning" of 9/11? It is, as Martin Luther King put it, this:

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

I'm taking my show on the road this autumn, to campuses around the country, talking about some of the ideas expressed in Wednesday's column on "Anti-Interventionism: The Left-wing Tradition." My talk is entitled "Why Has the Left Sold Out the Antiwar Movement?" - which is sure to provoke a controversy, or at least that's the hope.

The libertarian student movement, organizing nationally under the leadership of Young Americans for Liberty, is the most exciting - and important - development since the birth of contemporary libertarianism itself. Murray Rothbard, who founded the modern libertarian movement in his living room (and, back then, believe me, it was just big enough to fit in his modest-sized living room), would be thrilled if he were alive today. That's because they're hard core, and hard workers, busy building a burgeoning organization dedicated to ending the Fed and ending the wars the Fed makes possible. Who would've thought?! That's one reason I'm taking this tour, but another is to engage in dialogue with the left: to wake them up to the fact that a united antiwar movement, organized around the single issue of US military intervention overseas, is a moral imperative.

If you're interested in booking me at your campus, write wendy@antiwar.com, or call the Antiwar.com office, at: 510-217-8665.

* Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (ISI, 2008), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans (1996).He is a contributing editor for The American Conservative, a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, and an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.

Related posts:

• How Ehud Barak Pulled Off 9-11
• Israel Did 9-11 – How Zionists React to the Truth
• The Zionist Strategy of Demonizing Islam – by Anait Brutian

EI study refutes CAMERA media bias accusation
By Shervan Sardar, The Electronic Intifada, 18 August 2008

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9711.shtml

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a media monitoring organization with a large database of supporters known for its staunch support for Israeli policies and its ability to influence media coverage. While CAMERA claims to be objective and interested in holding the media accountable to its own "self-professed standards," the terminology and views of the organization are largely consistent with those of the Israeli government itself.

Earlier this year, an Electronic Intifada investigation brought CAMERA under scrutiny for its efforts to secretly take control of the administrative structures of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia (story here) CAMERA'S The Washington Post analysis

CAMERA's analysis of The Washington Post found only four outside commentaries (17 percent) in a 19-month period supporting an Israeli view or criticizing Arab policies and 17 supporting an Arab perspective or criticizing Israel, with two neutral op-eds. Only four op-eds on the conflict during this period would have been an extraordinarily small number considering this was a period which included the Israel-Lebanon war, Israel's proposed "convergence" plan, the Palestinian elections in which Hamas took control of the Palestinian parliament, the international boycott of Palestinians following the elections, and unprecedented intra-Palestinian violence.

CAMERA's flawed research led it to the conclusion that "[The] Washington Post Arab-Israeli commentary by outside writers is overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli or both." "The Washington Post rarely publishes outside commentary by Israelis in the news, or their supporters, whose views contradict those of Palestinians like the terrorists [Hamas advisor Ahmad] Yousef, [Hamas Prime Minister Ismail] Haniyeh, or [Hamas leader Mousa Abu] Marzook; or those of Palestinian apologists like [journalist Daoud] Kuttab, [former US diplomat Aaron David] Miller, and [former Clinton advisor Robert] Malley or anti-Israel polemicists like [former US President Carter ..."

However, a closer look at the data shows that CAMERA had not included 27 relevant op-eds (16 primary, 11 tangential) and had improperly classified others. Furthermore, most of the outside commentaries supporting Arabs or criticizing Israel contained views well within the mainstream international consensus for resolving conflict and support for international law.

During the 19-month period, The Washington Post had actually published not four, but 17 primary guest op-eds supporting an Israeli perspective or criticizing Arab policies, 13 more than claimed in the original CAMERA study. Ten of these 17 primary op-eds were missing from CAMERA's report altogether. There were also 16 primary op-eds supporting an Arab point of view or criticizing Israel with six neutral op-eds.

The primary op-eds omitted by CAMERA included two by Dennis Ross ("The Art of the Possible Peace; Rice's First Task: A Viable Israeli-Palestinian Cease Fire," "The Specter of 'Hamastan'; More Must Be Done to Counter Islamist Gains in Gaza") and one each from David Makovsky ("The Next Mideast War"), Newt Gingrich ("The Only Option Is to Win"), Richard Holbrooke ("The Guns of August"), Michael Oren ("Necessary Steps for Israel; Confronting State Sponsors of Terror Is the Only Option"), David Rivkin and Lee Casey ("Israel Is Within Its Rights"), Philip Gordon ("Air Power Won't Do It"), John McLaughlin ("We Have to Talk to the Bad Guys") and Franklin D. Kramer ("Making Peace Stick in Lebanon").

There were also several improperly classified op-eds including:

* Aaron David Miller ("Palestinians' Crisis of Leadership") criticizes Palestinian leadership as not coherent and "irresponsible" which CAMERA acknowledges. Nevertheless, CAMERA considered the article supportive of an Arab perspective.
* Steven A. Cook ("Don't Blame Democracy Promotion") blames Hamas and Hizballah for much of the conflict with Israel and criticizes their failure to embrace democracy, but CAMERA still considered the article neutral.
* Robert Eisen ("Muslims and Jews: Common Ground") discussed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from Muslim and Jewish perspectives and supported the role of the clergy in trying to bring people together. CAMERA characterized the article as a pro-Arab dismissal of threats to Israel -- and a failure to understand Islamic fundamentalism.

When op-eds tangentially discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict were considered, the data actually showed that 10 additional guest commentaries took an Israeli perspective or criticized Arab policies (eight of which were not included in the original CAMERA report), bringing the total to 27. Three additional tangential op-eds supported an Arab perspective or criticized Israel, a total of 19 and three more neutral op-eds appeared for a total of nine. Rather than pro-Arab, anti-Israeli or both, the guest commentaries in The Washington Post were actually more supportive of Israel or critical of Arab policies, similar to the rest of the editorial page.

CAMERA's The New York Times analysis

CAMERA's The New York Times analysis found only eight op-eds supporting Israel or criticizing Arab policies and twice as many criticizing Israel or supporting Arab policies which led to its conclusion that "rather than representing the 'nation's most important forum on the most contentious issues of the day,' The New York Times has become a vehicle for one-sided (pro-Arab) advocacy in a contentious debate."

Far from a vehicle for "pro-Arab advocacy," in fact, The New York Times actually published not eight, but 18 primary guest commentaries supporting Israel or criticizing Arab policies. There were another 16 guest commentaries supporting an Arab view or criticizing Israeli policies and with 12 neutral op-eds.

When op-eds only tangentially covering the Arab-Israeli conflict were considered, the data showed that six additional op-eds supported an Israeli perspective or criticized Arab policies, raising the total to 24, two additional op-eds supporting an Arab point of view or 18 total, and two more neutral op-eds or 14 total.

The primary difference between CAMERA's original analysis of guest commentaries in The New York Times and the re-examination was not the omission of articles per se as in their analysis of The Washington Post -- but the finding that CAMERA had arbitrarily classified many of the guest commentaries in a manner that downplayed op-eds supporting Israel or criticizing Arab policies and slightly increased the number commentaries supporting Arab policies or criticizing Israel.

In this regard, CAMERA's approach took several patterns. Some op-eds recommended ideas for how to resolve conflicts focusing primarily on the changes that could be made on the Arab side. These commentaries were considered neutral by CAMERA and not consistent with its own criteria for classifying articles:

* Former Israeli soldier Adir Gurion Waldman ("Lebanon's Force for Good") suggested that a task force between Israeli and Lebanese representatives could work on a broad range of issues but should have a new mandate for overseeing the "disarmament of Hizballah and other terrorist organizations." Although many might agree with this policy, the analysis did not contain equal criticism of the parties involved in the conflict.
* Mark Helprin ("Forced to Get Along") endorsed the West Bank first strategy of isolating Hamas and all other residents of Gaza. Again, the criticism primarily focused on Palestinians and could not be considered neutral.
* Michael Oren ("What if Israel and Syria Find Common Ground") considers the requirements for peace between Israel and Syria -- and in doing so discusses the problems with Syria from US and Israeli perspectives. Nevertheless, CAMERA considered the op-ed neutral.

In addition, some writers appeared to be typecasted as "pro-Arab" regardless of the commentary and even if demands were placed on both sides. Discussing how to resolve the conflict between Israel and Hizballah, the commentaries by authors Chibli Mallat ("Resolve to Put Lebanon in Charge") and Paul Salem ("Stop Bombs, Start Talks") below supported among other elements, the disarmament of Hizballah, called for the Lebanese government to be put in charge of the entire country, and sought the return of prisoners -- but they were still not considered balanced by CAMERA.

Finally, some classifications of op-eds were simply difficult to explain:

* CAMERA's description of an op-ed ("A Conflict that Will Stay Closer to Home") by Edward Luttwak states, "Discusses Israeli-Hizballah conflict as part of a larger conflict financed and directed by Iran and Syria." Although the description clearly blamed Syria for the conflict, the op-ed was placed in a neutral category.
* In another op-ed ("Cold, Hard Cash"), CAMERA claimed that Geoff Porter "urged US, EU funding of a Hamas-led government" when the main purpose of the article was to suggest that Arab states should make an effort to moderate Hamas with aid so that Hamas would not fall under Iran's orbit. This op-ed focused primarily on changing Palestinian behavior -- and whether or not this is an appropriate policy -- criticism was only directed at one side party to the conflict.
* An op-ed by Ted Koppel ("Look What Democratic Reform Dragged In") argued the US was fighting a war with Iran through proxies -- and took the view that Israel's bombing of Lebanon was a function of Israel understanding their "enemy's intentions with greater clarity than most" -- but the op-ed was still considered neutral by CAMERA.

Conclusion

CAMERA is incorrect in its analysis and perception that outside commentaries in The Washington Post and The New York Times reflect an anti-Israeli bias. When CAMERA's own analytic criteria are correctly applied and arbitrarily excluded articles are included, the statistics reflect that supporters of Israel or those critical of Arab policies have a slight advantage in the narrow category of guest op-eds during the period examined. The fact that the editorial staff and regular columnists of these papers are also overwhelmingly supportive of Israel and critical of Arab policies -- an issue not examined by CAMERA -- only drives the point home more clearly of the real problem of bias on the editorial pages.

Overall CAMERA claimed that 59 percent of The Washington Post and The New York Times primary guest op-eds dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict supported an Arab perspective or criticized Israel. In reality, the proportion was only 38 percent. And whereas CAMERA claimed that just 21 percent of primary guest op-eds supported an Israeli perspective or criticized Arabs, in reality 41 percent took such a position. CAMERA based its conclusions on an examination of just 56 articles, when in fact there were 85 primary op-eds (39 in The Washington Post, 46 in The New York Times) that met its criteria for inclusion in the study. Once again it is worth noting that these 85 guest op-eds did not include newspaper editorials, staff op-eds, or nationally syndicated writers.

The broader implication of the research here is that a more balanced presentation of the issues and opinion is sorely needed in the pages of America's newspapers -- where there is a lack of discussion of international law generally, [30] UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the conflict often do not appear, casualties on the Arab side are given less mention or not discussed at all, and the collective consensus of human rights organizations on critical issues of the conflict are rarely mentioned. If the media cannot portray the issues accurately or fairly -- and the national discourse on foreign policy remains unchanged on the pages of these papers, there can be little hope that the foreign policy itself will reflect standards of international decency or lead to a just resolution for all parties involved.

Download the full report [PDF]:
http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/080811-EI-CAMERA-report.pdf

Shervan Sardar is a Washington, DC-based lawyer. He holds a MA in International Affairs from American University and can be reached at ssardar_23 A T comcast D O T net.

Related posts:

• Weekend read: Lies, Sighs, Media and Politics
• NY Times, Washington Post slammed by Jewish organizations for Hamas op-eds
• What Christians Don’t Know About Israel

Wikinews has learned that a United States Department of Justice (DOJ) IP Address has been blocked on Wikipedia after making edits to an article which were considered "vandalism". In two separate instances, the IP address from the DOJ removed information from the Wikipedia article about the organization Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), regarding an attempt by the organization to secretly gain influence on the site. The IP address has been confirmed by Wikinews to be registered and used by the DOJ located in Washington, D.C.

On April 21, Electronic Intifada published a report based on leaked emails written between CAMERA and Wikipedia contributors who are allegedly planning to gain influence on the online encyclopedia. Information about CAMERA's campaign to influence Wikipedia was first added to the site's article about the organization on April 21 by user 'Bangpound', who cited the Electronic Intifada article.

According to the edit history on the Wikipedia article CAMERA, the entire subsection relating to this controversy was removed by the IP address 149.101.1.130, which is hosted by 'wdcsun30.usdoj.gov' and is used by the DOJ. The IP address removed information regarding CAMERA's plan to "cooperate with prominent Wikipedia editors to promote a Zionist viewpoint and oppose pro-Arab viewpoints on Wikipedia" at least two separate times, on April 24 and April 25.

The IP address belonging to the DOJ also made edits identified as vandalism to the Wikipedia articles Tracy Jordan, Roger Ebert, and James E. Akins. After several warnings on the IP address's "talk page", the IP address was blocked for four days for "repeated vandalism." Several hours prior to the DOJ edits, an IP address also from Washington D.C., 71.178.102.65, removed the same information. Wikinews can confirm the IP address is located in Washington D.C. and belongs to Verizon.

Wikipedia administrators were kept apprised in an ongoing discussion about the incident at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard. "The Justice employee is attempting to scrub any mention of CAMERA's activities to influence Wikipedia (now double-sourced) as seen here in this edit," said Wikipedia editor Lawrence Cohen, in an initial post to the Administrators' noticeboard.

Founded in 1982, CAMERA is a pro-Israel media-monitoring and research non-profit organization based in Boston, Massachusetts. On April 21 the Electronic Intifada, a not-for-profit online publication which covers the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective, published an article describing efforts by CAMERA to secretly influence Wikipedia articles. According to the article, Electronic Intifada obtained a series of emails between CAMERA and members of Wikipedia, attempting to game the encyclopedia and influence articles on the site related to Israel.

Electronic Intifada quoted a March 13 email from Gilead Ini, a Senior Research Analyst at CAMERA, who enlisted volunteers to make sure articles about Israel on Wikipedia were "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context". In a follow-up email from March 17, Ini emphasized secrecy, telling the email list members not to "forward it to members of the news media", and wrote that "There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions." The media criticism organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting criticized the CAMERA emails, calling them "particularly insidious" because "stealth and misrepresentation are presented as the keys to success."

Later discussions in the series of emails obtained by Electronic Intifada included advice on how to get members of CAMERA elected as Wikipedia administrators, in order to gain influence. Wikipedia user 'Zeq' posted to the list: "One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted [sic] articles for one month until they [sic] interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia [sic] editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator."

After the IP address belonging to the DOJ was blocked, Wikipedia editors informed the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications committee about the incident. Both Wikinews and Wikipedia are projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition to the DOJ IP address, several Wikipedia users determined to be cooperating with the CAMERA campaign to influence Wikipedia had also previously been blocked by Wikipedia administrators.

Wikinews requested a statement from the Department of Justice on the edits to Wikipedia, but as of this article's publication had not received a response.
Sources

* "About CAMERA". Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, retrieved April 28, 2008
* "Need admin eyes on US Department of Justice activity, please (CAMERA/lobbying)". Wikipedia, April 28, 2008
* "Communications committee/Notifications - US Department of Justice blocked for ongoing vandalism". Wikimedia Foundation, April 26, 2008
* "Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#Edit from U.S. Department of Justice". Wikipedia, April 28, 2008
* "POLÉMICA EN ORIENTE PRÓXIMO CON WIKIPEDIA - ¿Se puede reescribir la historia?". elmundo.es, April 24, 2008 ((Spanish))
* "Media Views - Electronic Intifada: A Pro-Israel Group's Plan to Rewrite History on Wikipedia". Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, April 21, 2008
* "EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia". Electronic Intifada, April 21, 2008
* Wikinews

Source: Mister-Info.com

Related posts:

• Wikipedia and Israeli lobbyists
• Frank Weltner: The Wikipedia (i.e., Jewish) Biography
• Bush/Rice State Dept. Explains to Palestinian Americans they’re 2nd Class US citizens

The op-eds were by Hamas's Ahmed Yousef, and were attacked by the usual suspects - CAMERA, the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organization of America.
http://tinyurl.com/24hoj8

Related posts:

• The Washington Post Finally gets its AIPAC Spy Story Straight
• LA Times: Why Does The (NY) Times Recognize Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’?
• The New York Times ignores international consensus — again!

Apparently, when you depict Israeli bulldozers destroying Palestinian schools, then you should know that you are anti-Semitic monster. The latest Zionist fart slammed NBC for what they call an ‘anti-Semitic’ TV show. Law and Order: Criminal Intent, a fictional police drama broadcast across America on NBC, centers on a journalist who is poisoned after his girlfriend uncovers a foul-up by Israeli intelligence.

The show depicts Israeli bulldozers destroying Palestinian schools, with at least one character referring to “Israeli brutality.”

It also includes a Jewish police captain who agrees to cover up for Israel by shutting down a criminal investigation at the urging of the head of the local pro-Israel group.

The infamous Zionist media watchdog “CAMERA” launched an e-mail campaign urging people to protest to NBC over the content of the program because the episode “fosters negative stereotypes of Jews as disloyal Americans and Israelis as brutes who demolish Palestinian schools and kill innocent civilians,” CAMERA claims that, “during this time of escalating anti-Semitism and anti-Israel animus, the show’s executives have shown extremely poor judgment to promote such an anti-Jewish, anti-Israel storyline.” You can guess the rest of the story.

I wonder what these Zionists are pissed of? Is it because they were depicted at first place because they believe that they are above all? or is it because they believe that destroying Palestinian schools and killing innocents is ok and should not be depicted because they don’t do that? Oh God! What these Zionists are telling us is that “Americans: you are not allowed to depict Israeli brutality because this is the norm of life and “holy” value the Zionist live by. Anyone elses’ bulldozers destroy schools should be depicted, but not Zionists, no one can kill innocents, but Zionists can and they can run with it because God said that they can do it.

There are no words that can describe how disgusting these Zionists are.

[Hat tip: Ryadh]

Related posts:

• Anti Israel sentiment rising; wondering why?
• Carter is an ‘anti-Semite’?
• Israel=Zionism=Terrorism? God forbid!!