| http://www.hoffman-info.com/palestine7.html
State-Sponsored Assassinations by Agents of the Israeli Government "Voici le temps des Assassins." Rimbaud Zionists Decree that the Media cannot use the term "Israeli Assassinations" Jewish Assassination and Media Doublethink by Michael A. Hoffman II The New York Times, liberal voice of obsessive Holocaustianity, as well as the other corporate media who take their cues from New York, use Orwellian doublethink to describe Jewish assassinations of Arabs. The New York Times minces no words about German crimes, but when it comes to Jewish assassins, the Times sanitizes Jewish murders. When is assassination not assassination? Why, when Jews do it, of course; then it is merely "targeted killing." Assassination is too harsh a word for the NY Times to use with regard to the actions of God's Master Race: "The Israeli pattern in recent months of targeting specific people for death has outraged Palestinians." -New York Times, August 1, 2001, p. A6. Nowhere in the Aug. 1 article does the NY Times term what the Israelis did "assassination." That word is only used in connection with reports of allegations: "...Palestinian charges of assassination." On Aug. 2 the Times reported, "In a five-hour session ...the security cabinet of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon affirmed the policy of picking out targets for killings." The Aug. 2 article in the NY Times rather awkwardly avoids terming what the Israelis did "assassination." That word is, again reserved only for accounts of allegations by others: "...what Palestinians call cold-blooded assassinations." The Times even reports on the Jewish search for a means to make palatable the assassinations: "...Israeli officials recognized that they had a problem selling their tactics elsewhere in the world. (Israeli) Ministers at the security cabinet meeting were reported to have debated what to call their policy. 'Liquidation' is one word the government has frequently used. So is 'interception'...Neither word pleased some ministers today, according to Israeli radio reports. A new phrase said to have been proposed was: 'actions to prevent the killing of Jews." -New York Times, Aug. 2, 2001 What the Times does not say (though it reveals as much by its journalistic practice), is that the newspaper itself conforms to this Israeli doublethink "selling tactic." For example on Aug. 6, 2001 the New York Times minced words again: " The missile strike was the third in less than a week, part of Israel's pattern of singling out certain Palestinians for death." "Singling out Palestinians for death" -- another N.Y. Times euphemism for the A-word. The Aug. 6 article repeats the pattern: the NY Times does not refer to the Israeli assassinations as assassinations. The word is rmentioned only in connection with an allegation made by others: "To Palestinian leaders, such attacks amount to a policy of state-sponsored assassination." But not to New York Times reporters or editors. The Wall Street Journal in an Aug. 2, 2001 editorial concerning Israeli policy, in strict conformity with the N.Y. Times' Orwellian thought code, does not use the forbidden assassination word either. According to the Wall Street Journal, Palestinians "...are being brought down en route to their mischief... This is war waged in twilight ... subtle..." I have news for Wall Street: Several Arab women and children and at least one dentist, have also been "brought down" by Israeli assassins and their only "mischief" was to be Palestinian, but they are unmentioned and nameless in the Wall Street Journal editorial because being Arabs they are not fully human. In the same way, the supreme Jewish Talmudic teacher Moses Maimonides stipulated that black people are not quite human, in his sacred rabbinic book, Guide of the Perplexed. On Aug. 4, 2001, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) issued a "new edict from their London editors that they must in future refer to the Israeli assassinations as "targeted killings." (Cf. The Independent, [London], Aug. 5, 2001). The Associated Press refers to Israeli assassinations of Palestinians as "Israeli military raids" (cf. AP Jerusalem dispatch, Aug. 7, 2001). The Boston Globe, which is owned by the NY Times Company, uses similar cosmetic "denier" phraseology. On Aug. 9, 2001 the N.Y. Times continued to studiously avoid the dreaded assassination word, referring to "...Mr. Sharon's policy of sending the army to kill specific Palestinian leaders..." On Aug. 9, 2001 the Jerusalem Post reported, "Minister Matan Vilna'i, a security cabinet member, told Army Radio that he favors continuing the policy of targeted killings..." "The implication was that, at the least, Israel would continue to single out certain senior Palestinian figures for death..." N.Y. Times, Aug. 10, 2001. "...targeted Israeli killings of suspected Palestinian militants..." Reuters, Aug. 10, 2001 "In recent months, Israel has killed more than 50 Palestinians...in targeted attacks...The targeted killings have been widely condemned..." Associated Press, Aug. 15, 2001 "Targeted killings," "picking out targets for killings," "singling out Palestinians for death," "brought down" and "military raids" are Big Brother's preferred doublespeak for Israeli assassination. The NY Times, the BBC, the AP, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal have self-censored their reporting to eliminate the word "assassination" as their own description of what the Israelis are doing, because this is what the Zionist Likud has dictated as public relations policy. Their house organs, "our" supposed "unfettered" media, have fallen on their knees in abject submission to the Jewish fiat. Why not call a spade a spade? Because the word assassination word is too obviously freighted with moral evil to be used in a Jewish context. It represents too much of a potential wake-up call to the goyim. Grotesquely sanitized terms must be substituted by corporate media such as the NY Times, a newspaper that reports at least weekly and often daily on a 56 year old "Holocaust." As it shrilly demands that the "Holocaust against the Jews" must never be minimized by one iota, the NY Times and allied media, whitewash Israeli crimes against the Palestinians right in front of our eyes, and do so with an arrogant contempt for the chilling parallel to "1984"-style thought control that is their lingua franca. Furthermore, if an Arab, German or white Christian government were to adopt a policy of assassination, the NY Times and the rest of the conforming media monopoly would immediately and boldly headline the word "assassination" in their reports of any such policy, without qualification of any kind. Moreover, the New York Times and other media actually advocate assassinations of Palestinian leaders: " ...Israel's military response to further attacks should be measured and targeted directly at those responsible for the violence." -New York Times editorial, June 5, 2001. Dick Cheney, the Vice-President of the United States, who is himself protected around-the clock from assassination by the U.S. Secret Service, agrees that assassinations of Arabs are justified: "...Cheney told Fox News last week that Israel might have 'some justification' for the killings..." (Jewish Telegraph Agency, Aug. 7, 2001). What if the Arabs decided that their 'military response' to 'further attacks' should be to 'target directly...those (Israelis) responsible for the violence' against Palestinian civilians? Would the N.Y. Times endorse assassinations of Jewish war criminals? Or does the N.Y. Times push the monster of assassination out of Pandora's box only on Talmudic terms--okay to assassinate the goyim, but not the Chosen?" The Washington Post actually endorses the extermination of the Palestinians. In the Aug. 15, 2001 edition, Post columnist Michael Kelly urged the Israelis to "unleash an overwhelming force" against the Palestinians, "go right ahead and escalate the violence" and "destroy, kill, capture and expel..." Can one imagine the Washington Post, or any other mainstream American newspaper, printing a column that calls for Palestinians, in order to gain their independence and freedom from foreign occupation, to "go right ahead and escalate the violence" and "destroy, kill, capture and expel" Israelis? If Palestinians spoke like this, the United States would demand their arrest and Israelis would place them on assassination hit lists and send death squads after them. Execution without trial, without ascertaining that a suspect really is a perpetrator of armed resistance and not a political activist, lets loose the demon of lawlessness. Palestinians insist that Jamal Mansour, killed by the Israelis along with seven other Palestinians, including two little boys, on July 31, was involved in political agitation only, and not with the military wing of Hamas. Yet the sychophantic American media simply took the Israelis word as infallible and labeled Mansour a guerrilla "mastermind," rather than someone who had been accused by the Israelis of such notoriety. If Americans were to break out of the claustrophobic Zionist media monopoly they would find that Cheney, Bush, Powell, Berger, William Cohen and William Clinton are regarded as terrrorists by hundreds of millions of people in the "Third World." When American leaders fund Israeli assassinations of Arab leaders with taxpayer dollars, those American leaders are complicit in those assassinations, and since turnabout is fair play, U.S. leaders open themselves up to their own assassination by the very demon of lawlessness their Israeli partners in crime unleashed in the occupied territories. Lest the U.S. secret police accuse this writer of advocating or apologizing for the assassination of Americans, I will point out the obvious. All assassinations are wrong. The spread of the contagion of Likud doublethink in the U.S. has caused Americans to subscribe to the racist Talmudic/Zionist double-standard that it is permissible, indeed perhaps even laudable, to assassinate "sub-human" Arab goyim, whereas the assassination of the Chosen terrorist Sharon, or his patrons in the U.S., would be deemed a moral outrage of the highest order by the guardians of public opinion in the West. "Our" media drum up a non-stop chorus of pompous propaganda about an antique "Holocaust" from 56 years ago, in which the most finite detail of absolute moral perfection is urged upon percipients with tiresome homiletic admonishment. These drippy little media "Holocaust" sermons are perhaps a cut above the inspirational platitudes found on greeting cards. At the same time that the media drown us in their bucket of crocodile tears, they create, on their editorial and news pages, a tenor of acceptance and advocacy for state-sponsored Israeli assassination, for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, in a word, for the holocaust of any Arab who dares to countenance an uprising in the Gaza ghetto. As the Israeli missiles fly and the tanks roll, let us divert ourselves with some dumbed-down movie-of-the-week entertainment, perhaps "Uprsing in the Warsaw Ghetto" starring Ben Affleck, introduced by a furrow-browed Tom Brokaw and written, produced and directed by flagrant Jewish blowhards. |
