Moslem threat or Zionist logic [Archives:2004/706/Opinion]

January 26 2004

One is bound to wonder how Americans should allow their public opinion to be manipulated by people who have gained a level of respectability for their supposedly perceptive assessments of the political scene in the United States and their unsubstantiated claim to have a vast knowledge of international events. It is no secret to any broad-minded reader of the American press that the Zionist establishment carries out a systematic campaign in the American press to mislead and coax American public opinion to looking at the Middle East and the whole world through Zionist binoculars. This well organized campaign entails the use of so called “prominent” writers and journalists to convey the events in the region in keeping with the image that Zionist advocates, who are well entrenched in the leading public media channels, to one level or another, work diligently to engrain in American minds. The object of this aggressive campaign, which is pursued by all different methods, is to ensure that the Americans, who are paying a substantial contribution to the maintenance and expansion of the Zionist agenda, and now taking part directly in helping to proceed with this agenda at full throttle, would find justifications for their government's extraordinary defense of Israel, militarily, economically and politically.
To illustrate this effort, as subtle as it may appear, one only has to read Thomas Friedman's many articles that are an integrated part of this effort, which are often thrown in between some of his occasionally more meaningful assessments of the domestic and international scene, which ensure that he will continue to hold his prominent status in the press. Needless to say, this writer enjoys an unlimited expense account that supposedly allows him to chase after the truth, wherever it can be found and thus lend credence to his writings as unquestionably being backed by first hand knowledge. This observer, however, was quick to decipher the obvious role that this writer plays in promoting the Zionist cause and it was clear that as liberal-minded and open-minded as Friedman tries to convey himself, the venom of hatred and Zionist sympathy is well manifested in some, if not all of his writings. One wonders how, with the poor quality and baseless reliance on generalizations and innuendos, the writings of Friedman can be deemed to be acceptable, let alone be respectable. In a recent 5-part article in the New York Times, Friedman unabashedly showed his true colors. Using the context of the results of the Iowa Democratic Caucus, Friedman went on to tie the results to some of the clear reflections of Zionist hate mongering that the American Zionist movement spares no efforts in promoting in the United States. The article was meant to convey that the results in Iowa reinforced the belief of Iowa voters that the Bush Administration's drive against what he called the “Moslem threat” is worthy of adoption by the Democrats, even though they may oppose the approach, or criticize Bush's errors in facing up to this menace, that is bugging Friedman and his likes. He persistently went on to make sure that if Islam or Moslems are to be mentioned, he will consistently add an evil association thereto, such as “Islamic totalitarianism threatening open societies” and other evil connotations that Islam must be tied to, as though Islam and evil go hand in hand. On top of this, Friedman insists that he is a broad reader of American public opinion, which he wants us to believe goes along with such hate-filled rhetoric and he states that the American mood in general wants a serious “critique” of the Bush Administration by the Democrats. He defines this “serious critique” as “the one that connects with the gut middle American feeling that the Islamic threat had to be confronted”. So no matter what platform a candidate wishes to run under, this gut middle American feeling is the number one guide to ensuring the votes needed to win, otherwise the candidates can just forget about running. This observer is not sure how such a feeling was found by Friedman and is even less sure how much the Iowa Democrats weighed in this feeling as they decided on their preferred candidates, but for Thomas Friedman that was the real deciding factor, and all the other issues that may be of concern to the American voters were thrown out the window.
The obvious reading that one has of such misleading analysis is that indeed the American people are not at all pleased with Mr. George W. Bush's performance as President of the United States and that could result in a search for an alternative that could take the holiday that the Zionists are enjoying with the Bush Administration away. To make sure that this does not happen, “prominent writers”, with undisguised sentiments for Israel, are now put to the task of convincing the American people that Mr. Bush had the right idea in mind in his unpretentious war against the “Islamic threat”, but the approach may have been wrong or erroneous. It is therefore up to the promising alternatives to simply find a different methodology to keep the “feelings of middle-America” happy. If anyone asks this observer what is meant by “middle Americans”, that is an explanation only Thomas Friedman will have to come up with, but will simply not bother to, since its fictitious nature is obvious to all sensible Americans who are beginning to see that the real danger to America is really manifest in the Zionist influence in a sloppy foreign policy with a strategy that borders on chaos.