Home
Who we are
Our Agenda
 

Latest News
Good & Bad News

101 Palestinian History
Link & Resources
The Valley Galleria
nileMedia Reader
 

Archives
Contribute
Join US
Contact Us

March 11, 2002
The Dean of Yiddish Supremacists at NYT

By Ahmed Amr.
Editor

 
 

William Safire is an extremist Likudnik and a liar. This is one Yiddish supremacist who should be investigated for aiding and giving comfort to war criminals. The Saudi Peace Initiative has gotten the extreme right-wing of the Israeli Lobby breaking out in a strange epidemic rash. So what does Safire do about it. Time for this Sulzberger trash talker to pile on the canards. After a week in which Israeli goon squads stormed through refugee camps and murdered over 100 Palestinians, Safire writes of "Palestinian attackers and Israeli defenders." The reason Safire doesn't see things like the rest of the world is because he is trying to blind New York Times readers to what is actually happening; Israeli occupation troops and a people struggling for their freedom.

Safire lies because Sulzberger shares his passion for canards. How does this idiot's work get past the research department? If the New York Times is just another hole in the ground, why do they tell lies as big as the Grand Canyon.

I challenge Sulzberger to defend the Safire article 'The War Process, [NYT, 3/11/2002). Absent a defense, it is fair enough to assume that Sulzberger's rag is nothing but a public relations operations for the Netanyahu wing of the Israeli right. That is to the extreme right of Sharon, the butcher of Qibya and Sabra and Shatila.

The New York Times wants it both ways. It wants to take credit for breaking the story on the Saudi Peace Initiative and it wants to do its Likudnik best to give Sharon a sharper knife to butcher Palestinians and abort the Saudi Peace deal.

Having said that, let me enumerate the number of lies that the New York Times Dean of Yiddish Supremacists can squeeze in a single editorial.

1. Never mentioning a word about the nature of the land thieving brutal military occupation. Untold basic truths are a basic distortion mechanism that Safire indulges in too frequently. At some point, clever Yiddish tricks stop working and the truth comes out.

2. He accuses the White House of 'mollifying the press, dovish partisans and Gaza terrorists'. The White House has given Ariel Sharon every green light he has asked for to pulverize the Palestinians. The biggest terrorists are in Tel Aviv, not the defenseless people of Gaza, which is operated as a prison camp by the IDF. Safire and Sulzberger approve of every act of Israeli brutality and constantly demand more on the pages of the New York Times.

3. Safire writes that the 'unspeakable is still printable here.' Wrong again! It is the unprintable that continues to be printed by Safire. No self respecting major paper in the world would allow a senior editorial writer to constantly lie and to wage a disinformation campaign for a belligerent foreign state led by a cabal of war criminals.

4. He states that Barak "made egregious concessions of land that would have endangered Israel". This an all too common canard by Israelis of all political stripes. The issue was never security but land lust by Talmud thumping lunatics out to displace native Palestinians. During the Oslo 'peace process', the Israelis doubled the number of settlements. Not for security, but for the sake of 'sacred' real estate. If the occupation of the West Bank was due to Israel's security needs, why did the Israelis add to their security burdens by planting settlements that needed additional military protection? The 1967 war was a land grab and the settlements, the expropriation of water, the attempts to 'entice' the Palestinians to leave, are all well documented.

5. "Bill Clinton, eager to wash away memory of his transgressions, pressed Barak for even more concessions to appease Yasir Arafat." Is Safire implying that 'appeasing' Yasser Arafat would have diminished Clinton's Lewinsky woes? Do the Palestinians control the mass media? Isn't it more likely that Clinton was appeasing Barak and the Yiddish supremacist crowd to get some backing on the 'Lewinsky Deal'? Does Safire still recall the meeting he had with Abe Foxman over the Clinton pardon of Mark Rich. Safire is getting lazy in his old age. He can't even think up a plausible lie and he forgets the lie he told yesterday. Bad form, even by the piss poor standards of the New York Times.

6. He describes Arafat as "That Saudi-sponsored Palestinian" who "seeing Israel's panicked leader on the run" "launched the terror war on civilians". Others actually recall that it was Sharon who showed up with 1000 fully armed cops and killed forty Palestinians to disrupt the 'Peace process". It was also the Israeli police who opened fire on their own Arab citizens, killing thirteen. Every American can easily check out who started this campaign of terror. And once you confirm the true version, be aware that Safire has consistently lied about it for eighteen months along with his colleagues at the gray lady's whore house.

7. Safire claims that Arafat launched the uprising and that this was 'well-recorded, hard history,' Making canards into 'hard history' is what the 'paper of record' is all about. Again, check it out and you will find another Safire lie.

8. He said that Clinton administration policy "paved the path to Arafat's war." Sure, Safire. Clinton who packed his State Department with Israeli Lobby appointees like Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrook, Martin Indyk, Madeline Albright, Rubin, Kurtzer and others was hardly out to pave anything for Arafat. He failed precisely because both Clinton and Gore were political creatures who were very much whores for the Israeli Lobby.

9. You won't believe the next canard by Safire "that history, frantically being buried by diplomatists, is exhumed to draw its lessons: One is that unilateral compromise is appeasement, which only whets the appetite of Arab extremists." Let us go first to the issue of Sulzberger's unique ability to bury history. Safire and Sulzberger have, along with other Jewish 'intellectual' leaders, mounted a historically unprecedented campaign to cover up Sharon's war crimes at Qibya and Sabra and Shatila. Next, this 'appeasement of Arab extremists' is a bit too much. The Palestinians are not extremists for standing up against a foriegn invading army that has pillaged their lands, impoverished their people, murdered and maimed thousands of civilians, demolished homes, executed political leaders without trial and imposed a regime of closure that can only be compared to internment camps. Indeed, both the Bush and Clinton administration conspired to give Israel the means to implement the darkest fantasies of Arile Sharon. Safire is a typical Yiddish supremacist thug who always bites the hand that feeds his pet monster, Arik.

10. Safire writes that "Palestinian terrorists will coerce Israel into submission". The Palestinians have generously offered to give up 78% of their patrimony so that they can go on with their lives and set up an independent state on the remaining 22%. That is what a return to the 1967 borders would allow. But the achievement of Palestinian liberty is considered 'submission' by Israel. How does Safire's sick mind work? and Why does the New York Times not provide its Dean of Yiddish supremacy with better mental health coverage.

11. Safire writes that 'only the Palestinian side is targeting civilians'. That is another outrageous lie and a very cruel one. Israel has fired indiscriminately against civilian living in crowded refugee camps. One of ever three Palestinian fatalities has been under the age of 18. Many thousands of Palestinians have been permanently maimed by sadistic Israeli soldiers. Safire knows full well that the IDF does not investigate Palestinians murdered by their troops. The thing about Safire is he really likes to see Israelis killing Arabs, as do many of these demented right wing Likudniks who work for Sulzberger at the New York Times, the daily ruse.

12. Safire writes that "Invading Arabs, as previous Israeli generations learned, are defeated by preemptive action and fierce counterattack".

  a. First canard, Arabs have never invaded Israel. In 1948, the Arabs attempted to prevent Israel from taking the portions of Palestine that were allocated to the Palestinians. Read Ben Gurion's account and Simha Flapan's work on this subject. They did not enter the battle until Israel had already gone way beyond the borders defined in the Partition plan. True, because they were the true natives of the land, they did not want it divided. But it was the Israelis who went beyond the borders allocated to them in the UN partition plan of 1947.

  b. Second Canard. 1956 was hardly an Arab invasion. Egypt was attacked by France, England and Israel. Ike stepped in and told them to get their grubby hands off Egypt. If Safire needs another copy of the Protocol of Severes, I would oblige him. But I believe he has his own copy. He just wants to lie about the contents of this Protocol because Israel comes off as an unprovoked invader teamed up with France and England in a pre-planned assault.

  c. Third Canard. In 1967 Israel invaded Egypt Syria and Jordan as part of a border expansion scheme that had been in the works for years. Read Moshe Dayan's diary. The immediate confiscation of lands for exclusive Jewish settlements started immediately and has not slowed since.

  d. Fourth Canard. 1973, Egypt and Syria fought to regain their lost lands, which were held under belligerent Israeli military occupation. The whole war was conducted on Egyptian and Syrian soil. Calling it an invasion of Israel is a common lie often told by the Yiddish supremacists and their political allies.

  e. Fifth Canard. 1982 was a big play by Sharon for a further expansion of Israel into Lebanon. Even most Israelis know that it was a war of aggression. If Safire's memory has failed him, let him read Jacobo Timmerman's "The Longest War". Or better yet, how about "Error and betrayal in Lebanon" which has the subtitle "An analysis of Israel's invasion of Lebanon and the implications for US- Israeli relations'. The book was written by George Ball, the former American Undersecretary of State.

Note that this particular misrepresentation of history can be found all over the archives of the New York Times. Before the Internet, the Yiddish supremacist were depending on the twenty minute memory span of the average reader. Who was going to go and look up their pattern of deception on the most basic facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict. They were the New York Times and they could tell any version of history that suited their pro-Israeli agenda.

Who has been hostile to who in the Arab-Israeli conflict is vital information. Ben Gurion, Simha Flapan, Moshe Dayan, Jacobo Timmerman and George Ball all point to the fact that Safire is a liar and misrepresents history out of the ideological blindness that is the very essence of his racist ethnic dogma.

13. Safire claims that Sharon is willing to negotiate peace but not on the 'Barak-Clinton' surrender terms which are far from 'reasonable expectations'. Sharon wants peace? That is a lie of criminal proportions. It is a lie that has been used to allow the continued repression of the Palestinian people. What the hell is the difference between Safire and a common street thug. Safire's response is that the street thugs he hangs out with also belong to the gang that owns and operates the New York Times.

14. Safire writes of his idol 'Benjamin Netanyahu' who thinks that Sharon has been too soft on the Palestinians. Now, there is a psychopath for you. He talks of " A frank presentation by the former prime minister of his plans to pulverize terrorism". What Safire meant to say was that Netenyahu is willing to introduce a regime of repression that would make Hitler proud. He wants to pulverize the Palestinians under the banner of 'fighting terrorism' or any other banner hanging around 43rd street

15. I don't know if the following qualifies as a lie, or pure Safire stupidity. But he equates America's war on Al Qaeda with Israel's war on Hamas. His buddy, Netenyahu has compared the Palestinians to the Taliban, including Christian Palestinians. What the Israelis saw in 911 is a license to intensify their brutality. George Bush gave Sharon a series of green lights and now he figures he made a mistake coddling this serial mass murderer. The Palestinians are a noble native people fighting against thuggish Yiddish supremacist land thieves with an appetite for murder. What the hell does this have to do with the Taliban? If anyone is like the Taliban, it is the Yiddish supremacist and their cult of canards.

Almost every statement of fact in this particular Safire editorial is a lie. I am willing to prove it in a court of law. Because of Safire's research staff and the ample resources of the New York Times, I am assuming that the lies were deliberate, a matter of company policy and approved by the publisher, Sulzberger.

If the New York Times has a rebuttal, we will gladly publish it on NileMedia. Otherwise, we will just visualize the volume of egg on their face. Sulzberger is no journalist. He is an agent provocateur for a brutal foreign regime. He is a slavish worshiper of Ariel Sharon and approves his violence against the Palestinians. That is why he allows a right wing racist lunatic like Safire to have a run of the house

At the end of the article Safire holds this out for Arafat and the Palestinians "an interim agreement to be signed in a new Palestinian state's capital which he should not expect to be Jerusalem," I got news for Safire and the other vicious fire breathers at the New York Times, ask Sulzberger for an increase in your diaper allowance. Don't write when you have been imprisoned in a wet diaper for over a week. Safire's 'peace plan' is obviously an invitation to additional Israeli cruelties. So, Until kosher pigs fly and learn to change Safire's diaper, expect the New York Times to continue being belligerent to the Palestinian people's quest for liberty.


Friend's Name: 
Friend's E-mail: 
Your Name: