Israeli anti-semitism: 'Fiasco' author says Israel allows missile attacks for PR purposes

"The most distrusted name in news"

On his CNN TV program of 6 August 2006, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post interviewed Thomas Ricks, the Post's Pentagon reporter and author of the book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.

Ricks told Kurtz, "One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon."

Kurtz responded, "Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of its fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?" Ricks replied, "Yes, that's what military analysts have told me."

Kurtz remarked "that's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here." Ricks replied "It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well." (Source:

Ricks' assertions are credible, although his sources are not named, given that the Zionists have never scrupled about attacking and manipulating Jews for their own self-serving ends, as documented by the Dossier on Palestine (case of Operation Ali Baba).

But such assertions also reveal a profound prejudice about the great omnipotence of the Israeli state, able to control and manipulate everything in its path, even the resistance movement of the Lebanese people! According to this thesis, people are able to accomplish nothing. How else to explain the tactical defeats in the battlefield in South Lebanon, which has even led to a factional purge within the IDF military general staff, not even mentioned by "unreliable sources", for whom objective reality is a matter of "perception", interpretation, and debate?

"The most distrusted name in news"

The transcript of the CNN TV program further reveals the deepening internal crisis within the US monopoly media to make credible its role in facilitating the disinformation of the US state on the war against Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq, and the personal efforts of Kurtz to enforce CNN guidelines on US war correspondents through his program.

For Kurtz and the media, Israeli aggression is merely a military conflict with "terrorists", not a war of aggression and occupation of definite peoples and definite nations. Kurtz blithely reiterates the US-Israeli justification for war crimes as fact: "Especially since Hezbollah is known to hide some its rocket launchers in civilian areas". His concern is to besmirch the credibility of the Lebanese resistance in world opinion right at the moment humanity is condemning the illegal, unjust US-Israeli aggression and occupation of Lebanon and Palestine.

Kurtz expresses further concern "especially with the civilian stories that you've been seeing" that "civilian casualties (are) increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?"; and goes on to probe with a NBC journalist in Lebanon: "You went on to say that some of these refugees had asked you for a ride as you were leaving. Is it inevitable, when you do this kind of up-close and personal reporting, that your reporting creates sympathy for one side of the conflict?"

Kurtz's concern is what we can call the "Stockholm effect of Anglo-American journalism": the "objective" journalist as the "kidnapped" victim of "civilian refugees", feeling and "creating sympathy" for their plight and hence losing his "balance."

Far from being isolated and spontaneous questioning, all this probing reflects the CNN agenda. The script is written at the highest level, without concern for the truth. On 3 November 2001 Reliable Sources aired a program entitled, "Is media coverage of the war biased? Is the press correct in turning negative on the war in Afghanistan?"

The same Howard Kurtz asked: "CNN chairman Walter Isaacson issued a memo this week that said, among other things about war coverage, 'As we get good reports from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, we must redouble our efforts to make sure we do not seem to be simply reporting from their vantage or perspective. We must talk about how the Taliban are using human shields and how the Taliban have harboured the terrorists responsible for killing close to 5,000 innocent people.'

Isaacson's order to his international correspondents was issued three weeks before the invasion of Afghanistan on 7 October 2001, as reported by Kurtz in the Washington Post on 18 September 2001.

CNN News Group chairman and CEO Isaacson, formerly managing editor of Time magazine, has gone on to head up as president and CEO The Aspen Institute, an imperialist think tank, but the dictate, jeremaids against "terrorism", and the pretexts of psychological warfare of this media colossus and the Pentagon remains the same, five years and four wars of occupation (Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Lebanon) later. Of course, reality is not for them to decide. Day by day, the peoples of the occupied countries have decided the war is on them and are writing their own first drafts of history. - Tony Seed

      Home |  Archives  |  Write On! |  Dossiers |  Search |  Boutique | Donate

Comments to : Copyright New Media Services Inc. 2006. The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of shunpiking magazine or New Media Publications. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. Copyright of written and photographic and art work remains with the creators.