Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Zionist 'Hasbara' Agent Whines When Confronted with his numerous LIES

Norman Finkelstein vs Martin Indyk over Gaza and the "Peace Process" back on the 1/8/2009 Democracy Now show

The Israeli assault on Gaza is entering its thirteenth day. [More like 62 YEARS] Some 700 Palestinians have been killed, with many thousands more wounded, and a humanitarian crisis is mounting. Ten Israelis have died, four by friendly fire. A ceasefire has not been reached, and the offensive continues. We host a debate between Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton administration, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and author of, Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East, and Norman Finkelstein, author of several books, including The Holocaust Industry, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah.

Zionist Lie Master Gets Bitch Slapped by TRUTH telling Jew

Martin Indyk, Ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton administration. He is currently the Director & Senior Fellow of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, another 'hasbara' outlet; AIPAC member; helped create another Zionist professional liar's outfit, WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy); Indyk was also the first United States Ambassador to be stripped of a security clearance. Indyk was under investigation for improperly handling sensitive material--In other words, he was spying on America for Apartheid Israel.

WINEP is used by American Fifth Columnists and Back-Stabbers to control the White House while its bastard twin, AIPAC, bribes, blackmails, extorts and controls the US Congress.

Also a member of "War is Good, Double Good" Zionist outfit, the Council on Foreign Relations.
Norman Finkelstein, author of several books, including The Holocaust Industry, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah.

We turn first to Ambassador Indyk. Can you explain why you think Israel began this assault almost two weeks ago now?

MARTIN INDYK: Good morning, Amy. Thanks very much for having me on the show. I feel a little bit sandbagged here. I was not told that I was going to be in some kind of debate with Norman Finkelstein. I’m not interested in doing that. I’m also not here as a spokesman for Israel. But I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

I think that what happened here was that there was a ceasefire, an informal ceasefire, between Hamas and Israel that had lasted for about five months. Hamas decided to break that ceasefire with a prolonged series of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians in southern Israel. And the Israeli government responded with overwhelming force, designed, as they have said, to try to reestablish deterrence, to prevent Hamas from doing that again, and to try to get a ceasefire in place that would prevent Hamas from smuggling in offensive weapons into Gaza, the better to attack Israel.

AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein, your assessment of why Israel attacked now?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, the record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Mr. Indyk is correct that Hamas had adhered to the ceasefire from June 17th until November 4th. On November 4th, here Mr. Indyk, I think, goes awry. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.

Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one, as Mr. Indyk I think correctly points out, to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.

And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas.
(Pay attention when the Zionist 'hasbara' agent, Martin Indyk, starts whining when he finds out that there will be another on the program to counter his LIES. 'Hasbara' is a Yid term for LYING)









Hasbara explained in English terms

Fadi Kiblawi, Israel's Campus Concerns, The Palestine Chronicle, Oct. 23, 2003.

Quote: "The Hasbara Handbook prescribes fascinating instructions on attacking the messenger and avoiding the message at all costs ‘in ways that engage the emotions, and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote’ their cause. In a section entitled ‘Name Calling,’ Israel's Jewish Agency writes, ‘Creating negative connotations by name calling is done to try and get the audience to reject a person or idea on the basis of negative associations, without allowing a real examination of that person or idea."

The techniques utilized

Smearing/defaming critics of Israel, aka, attacking the messenger. This is even the terminology found in the Hasbara Handbook

Selective discussion of issues

Framing of issues, and setting the terminology used in discussing Israel

Harassing media about its coverage, aka, flak

Challenging the portrayal of an alternative narrative, and attempting to keep the zionist narrative as the dominant one.

Hasbara Campus Manual..PDF file

The Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus, is now available online. And this is an interesting admission (page 31 onwards):

Propaganda is used by those who want to communicate in ways that engage the emotions and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote a certain message.
The manual goes on to describe seven propaganda techniques:

1.Name calling: through the careful use of words, then name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol.

2.Glittering generality: Simply put, glittering generality is name calling in reverse. Instead of trying to attach negative meanings to ideas or people, glittering generalities use positive phrases, which the audience are attached to, in order to lend positive image to things. Words such as "freedom", "civilization",…

3.Transfer: Transfer involves taking some of the prestige and authority of one concept and applying it to another. For example, a speaker might decide to speak in front of a United Nations flag, in an attempt to gain legitimacy for himself or his idea.

4.Testimonial: fear.

5.Plain folks: The plain folks technique attempts to convince the listener that the speaker is a 'regular guy', who is trust-worthy because the are like 'you or me'.

6.Fear: See fear.

7.Bandwagon: See bandwagon.

The examples given are very interesting, and worth reading

Israel uses TV show to find its best spin doctor

1 comment:

  1. Indyk was shitting his pants that entire interview. It was so blatantly obvious that he knew he had been schooled with truth that he literally could not/ DARE not even try to bullshit his way out of the poignant accusations.

    Finkelstein had his shit together and is always impressive. But truth can do that.

    Seriously, I was embarrassed for Indyk.

    ReplyDelete

Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.

Blog Archive