God's Jewish Warriors — CNN's Abomination

CAMERA ^ | 8-23-07

[SJackson]

God's Jewish Warriors — CNN's Abomination

CNN's "God's Warriors," hosted by Christiane Amanpour, is a three-part series intended to examine the growing role of religious fundamentalism in today's world. Unfortunately, the first program in the series, "God's Jewish Warriors," is one of the most grossly distorted programs to appear on mainstream American television in many years. It is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which  Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated with that of Muslims heard endorsing "martyrdom," or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.

While in reality Jewish "terrorism" is virtually non-existent, the program magnifies at length the few instances of violence or attempted violence by religiously-motivated Jewish individuals - including having to go all the way back to 1980, for example, to explore a bombing campaign by a small group of Israeli Jews atwo West Bank Arab mayors. By dredging up such an old incident Amanpour unintentionally undermines her own thesis.

Settlements are likewise a key focus of the program, their residents and adherents being deemed "God's warriors" – along with those Americans, Jewish and Christian alike, who support them. American presidents and Members of Congress are said to be held hostage to the so-called "Israel Lobby," ostensibly dark forces consisting of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups who supposedly enable the nefarious expansion of West Bank communities.

Disproportionate reliance on partisan voices, some extreme figures, skews the message dramatically. Jimmy Carter and John Mearsheimer, chief proponents of the discredited canards about Jews subverting American national interests to those of Israel, are repeatedly and respectfully interviewed. Carter, for example, claims that no American politician could survive politically while calling for settlement-related aid cuts to Israel: "There's no way that a member of Congress would ever vote for that and hope to be re-elected."

That would be news to politicians like Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, who has long been a critic of aid to Israel and opposed loan guarantees to Israel in 1992. As well, contrary to Amanpour and Carter, Representatives James Trafficante, Dana Rohrabacher, Nick Smith, Fortney Pete Stark, Neil Abercrombie, David E. Bonior, John Conyers Jr, John D. Dingell, Earl F. Hilliard, Jesse L. Jackson Jr.,  Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Jim Moran, David R. Obey, Ron Paul and  Nick J. Rahall II, have voted against aid to Israel and/or opposed other resolutions favoring Israel.

Amanpour ignores all this, and turns instead to former Senator Charles Percy, who joins in denouncing Jewish political influence. Only Morris Amitay is presented as balance on this critical issue.

Whether wittingly or not, Amanpour's program, with its reliance on pejorative labeling, generalities, testimonials, and a stacked lineup of guests, is a perfect illustration of classical propaganda techniques. Unfortunately propaganda is the opposite of journalism, the profession Amanpour is supposed to practice.

The program was misleading and inaccurate in many other ways as well:

Land

Amanpour says: "But it is also Palestinian land. The West Bank - it's west of the Jordan River - was designated by the United Nations to be the largest part of an Arab state." 

This is highly deceptive. The United Nations 1947 Partition Plan proposed dividing all the land west of the Jordan into a Jewish and an Arab state; the Arabs rejected the plan, choosing instead to launch a war to eliminate Israel. The land did not become "Palestinian land" via this UN Plan. Likewise, UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, underscored that territorial adjustments related to the West Bank were to be expected.

Settlements

• Amanpour suggests settlements are the cause of Arab anger: "the Jewish settlements have inflamed much of the Arab world," yet the Arab world was just as anti-Israel (actually more so) before the settlements were built.

• She presents at length the views of Theodor Meron asserting the illegality of settlements as the definitive word, but makes no mention of more senior Israeli experts such as former Supreme Court Chief Meir Shamgar, who disagreed with Meron. Nor does Amanpour mention such foreign experts such as Professors Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow who also argued for the legality of settlements. See for example From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories" by Dore Gold.

• She grossly misleads about America's position on settlements in the following sequence:

WILLIAM SCRANTON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: My government believes that international law sets the appropriate standards.

AMANPOUR: From the earliest days of the settler movement, even the United States, Israel's closest ally, blasted Israel's settlement policy.

SCRANTON: Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal.

AMANPOUR: Ever since American presidents both Democrat and Republican have spoken from virtually the same script. They consistently oppose settlement growth.

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements.

In fact, Reagan said: "As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there -- I disagreed when the previous Administration referred to them as illegal, they're not illegal" (NYTimes, Feb. 3, 1981). Others did not deem settlements "illegal."

• Amanpour continuously discounts the context of the Arab world. She says with regard to the post Six-Day War period: "But the Israeli government was divided - trade the captured land for peace or keep it and build Jewish settlements." Unmentioned is the Arab refusal to "trade" anything for peace as embodied in the three "no's" delivered at a summit in Khartoum declaring there would be no negotiation, no recognition and no peace with Israel.

Jerusalem/Temple Mount, and The Holy Places

• Amanpour says: "It was from here, according to Muslim scripture, that the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven around the year 630. But Hebrew scripture puts the ancient Jewish Temple in the same location, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70. For the next 1,900 years, even the last remnant of the temple known as the Wailing Wall, or the Western Wall, was lost to the Jews."

a) Muslim scripture refers to Mohammed ascending to heaven from the "farthest mosque," which could not have been on the Temple Mount, since the mosque there wasn't built until well after the death of Mohammed. 
b) The Western Wall isn't a remnant of the Temple, it is merely a retaining wall built to extend and flatten the Temple Mount. And there are indeed actual remains of the First and Second Temples on the Temple Mount.
c) Although Amanpour notes the holiness of the Temple Mount to Jews and Muslims, and some Jews in clips say that it is the holiest site for Jews, she never points this out herself, nor does she mention that Hebron is Judaism's second holiest city with its second holiest shrine.
d) Amanpour interviews the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to give a Muslim perspective on the Al Aqsa Mosque, but no Jewish Rabbinical figure is presented to discuss the paramount religious importance of the Temple Mount to Jews.

Carter and Mearsheimer

Amanpour states: " Most recently, former President Carter was criticized for criticizing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. In his book, "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid." 

Carter was, of course, "criticized" for purveying multiple false statements about Israel and the Palestinians. See, for example, A Comprehensive Collection of Jimmy Carter's Errors.

Professor John Mearsheimer is also invited on to explain to viewers the allegedly pernicious effects of the "Jewish Lobby," with no mention by Amanpour of the extremely serious flaws that critics have identified in Mearsheimer's work.

Muslim "Anger"

Interviewed by Amanpour, Gershom Gorenberg states: "You can't understand the anger of radical Islam unless you understand the conflict between you know, the Jews and the Palestinians."  The false implication is that such "anger" is primarily rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, disregarding the far greater forces driving radical Islam, including the titanic struggle between Shiites and Sunnis triggered in large measure by the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the Khomenist revolution and the expansion of Saudi Wahabism.

As even the Ayatollah Khomeini put it, the United States was the "Great Satan," while Israel was only the "Small Satan."

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]

----------------------------

[Biggirl]

CNN loves to paint the faiths of the Holy Bible in a very bad light.

[JoeGar]

Amanpour is — and always has been — a Palastinian hack.

[Sender]

I saw the special, along with last night's Islamic segment and will be watching the Christian segment of the trilogy.

If I were a newcomer to planet Earth, and had no knowledge other than the CNN special, I would think that there were as many Jewish bombers as Palestinian bombers.

I would think that Israel is illegally encroaching on the land of an oppressed people. I would think that Muslim anger and martyrdom is "understandable".

Worst of all, I would think that Jimmy Carter must be the most important President, and that his views on the conflict must be true.

Fortunately, I have lived on planet Earth for some time now, and I know a thing or two beyond CNN.

[rollo tomasi]

Does CNN run a disclaimer saying the views of this Arab chick are not endorsed by our network?

Or caution, the views of this Arab chick are what we call propaganda, lies and distortion and should not be taken seriously. You can’t put lipstick on a pig that likes to blow up civilians in shopping malls, restaurants etc. because they feel oppressed.

[theDentist]

I saw the ad over the weekend. When I saw Christiane Amanpour, I knew it wasn’t worth watching.

[expatguy]

TV designed for idiots almost.

Exposing God's Muslim Warriors

[2banana]

Dear Editor:

I fought in Afghanistan as a Special Forces Team Commander. I am also what you would perceive as a “wacky-right-wing-conservative-Christian-religious-person”

So here are the differences between myself and the Taliban.

The Taliban allowed no freedom of expression, no rights for women, no freedom of religion and destroyed anything and everyone that did not abide by their version of Islam. They destroyed the famous Buddhist statues of Bamiyan because the felt they were un-Islamic graven images. The wiped out entire peoples and villages (such as the Hazara) because they were not Islamic enough. They would think nothing of executing an entire village if one family converted to Christianity. They cut the ears, eyes, tongues and noses off people for “infractions against Islam.” They turned schools into horse stables. They planted bombs and mines in children’s play fields. They torched newly built girls schools. They stoned women to death who had been raped for “adultery.” They allowed the training of terrorist groups to export their version of Islam to the world. They looked at the world as two spheres – One that has been conquered by Islam and one that will be conquered by Islam through war. They would think nothing of raping your wife and children and making you a slave or corpse. It is what you and your family, or any non-Islamic person, deserves for being an infidel. They would not allow women (and girls) to go to school, have a job or even leave their home (unless accompanied by a male relative). The Taliban ruled by fear and intimidation. They remind me of the Nazis and Communists.

What do the so called religious conservatives in this country want? Here is the super secret list: Economic Opportunity and Personal Liberty.

Things like: Taxes we can afford; A reverence for the US Constitution as the Founding Fathers wrote it; An appreciation for the values and traditions that made this country the finest in the history of the world; A respect for all opinion, not just what is the PC flavor of the month; An understanding that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character;” And respect for life (no matter how vulnerable or powerless).

The differences are slight, but there they are. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.

De Oppresso Libre,

2banana

[desertlily]

Here's a more passionate response to the CNN thang!

[DesertSapper]

My wife had seen the ads for this series last week and mentioned that it looked interesting. When she told me it was CNN and Amanpour, I told her to expect exactly this: an attempt to equate Jews and Christians with the Islamofacist terrorists.

I hope no freeper wasted their time watching this unless for media fallacy research.

[Sender]

My wife is recording the whole thing because several people at our church want a DVD of it. I am going to be sure and put an appropriate disclaimer on it.

[Biggirl]

Goes to show that CNN is desperate to beat out Foxnews.

[Col. Bob]

Great Post!!

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but did’t Amanpour repeatedly say the Jewish settlers on the West Bank purchased the property (from the Palestinians or Arabs I presume) that they built their settlements on?

[SJackson]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but did’t Amanpour repeatedly say the Jewish settlers on the West Bank purchased the property (from the Palestinians or Arabs I presume) that they built their settlements on?

I've not seen the program. It's true that the land was purchased, and in many cases was occupied by Jews prior to the 1948 war. If she emphacized that, I'm surprised.

[Califreak]

“I hope no freeper wasted their time watching this unless for media fallacy research.”

Guilty as charged! Only reason I watch my local nooz & CNN.

[himno hero]

Right.on.Amanpour,

Im..glad.that.you.should.have.noticed.billy.graham.leading.death.to.Iran.chants.from.the.pulpit

or.advocating.suicide.bombing,.death.to.the.muzzies.etc.etc.etc!
Truly.accurate,true.and.objective!

Thats.reporting!

[Cvengr]

Christina Amanapour isn’t smart enough or powerful enough to actually be the source of the poor thinking being projected by CNN.

There are common themes amongst antiChristians, such as those endorsed by freemasons purporting Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all acceptable forms equal of worship to God. Interestingly, God Himself tells of in His Word of the Adversary who intends to make himself as God and is characterized by an affinity to substitute himself and his order as a counterfeit to God’s Plan. Accordingly, it isn’t surprising that there may be many who equate various religions to worship God, because all except one faith are substituting the object of worship away from God Himself, parlaying that worship into evil by the Adversary, seeking to be worshipped himself.

If one wants to know which faith is true, simply place faith in God through Christ and let God provide the truth in His way to the individual believer. All faith is provided by God, so any thinking outside of that is not from Him.

In terms of worldly systems, even amongst the worldly leaders there are a myriad of hidden conflicts, and the visible proponents of power are frequently the least powerful members influencing events. CNN is merely a medium by which such policies may be advocated by those who believe political science provides sufficient mechanisms to control worldly behavior, independent of anything true from God.

[khnyny]

bump.

[justiceseeker93]

MSM Middle East bias alert ping!