This is especially awkward when Amy Goodman asks her guest, Kari Partapuali, of the Norwegian Centre Against Racism, "Could you talk more about the issue of Neo-Nazism and how this fits in?" As Partapuali correctly denies that the massacre was an act of Neo-Nazism, she then becomes vague, avoiding altogether Breivik's stated contempt for what he describes as "Liberal Jews". Partapuali similarly does not address Breivik’s enthusiastic support of Zionist Jews and their desire to deport Muslims from Israel. Obviously, Nazism is recognized for its hatred and contempt of all Jews. Kari Parapuali was introduced by Amy Goodman as someone who has been studying Breivik, which was confirmed as she recalled detailed online references and influences behind Breivik's act. Why then, would Parapauli be so vague with the simplified description of Breivik as "shaped by the political violence of the right wing"? She is clearly avoiding the subject of Israel and Zionism.
Amy then asks Partapuali about "Jihad-watch", a website quoted 64 times in Breivik's manifesto. While it's encouraging to know that Amy Goodman is aware of the manifesto and may have perused it herself, she should also be aware that Israel is mentioned in that same document 364 times. References to the word "Jew" are mentioned 559 times and one key aspect differentiating Breivik's type of Nationalism from Nazism is found in the following quote from his Manifesto (emphasis and separation is added to key sentence within the paragraph):
"Were the majority of the German and European Jews disloyal? Yes, at least the so called liberal Jews, similar to the liberal Jews today that opposes nationalism/Zionism and supports multiculturalism. Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us."
"So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists."
"Conservative Jews were loyal to Europe and should have been rewarded. Instead, he [Hitler] just targeted them all. So, are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multiculturalist (nation-wrecking) Jews ARE while the conservative Jews ARE NOT. Aprox. 75% of European/US Jews support multiculturalism while aprox. 50% of Israeli Jews does the same. This shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP. Whenever I discuss the Middle East issue with a national socialist he presents the anti-Israeli and pro-Palestine argument. He always seem unaware of the fact that his propaganda is hurting Israeli nationalists (who want to deport the Muslims from Israel) and that he is in fact helping the Israeli cultural Marxists/multiculturalists with his argumentation."
This distinction is particularly relevant when Goodman's other guest, Ai Esbati, stresses that Breivik's acts "need to be understood in a socio-political context" which is "rising Islamophobia" in the western world. No single group is more dependent on and responsible for rising "Islamophobia" in the Western world than the Zionists in Israel. Esbati correctly states that Breivik's aggression is towards "[t]hose enabling infiltration by Islamic forces." Breivik singles out liberal Jews as traitors for this reason and in the same section of his 1500 page manifesto encourages support for Israel and Zionism.
Democracy Now's thirty-three minute analysis contains no mention whatsoever of Zionism, Israel or Jews. To Democracy Now, this subject is what ex-White House reporter Helen Thomas described as "the third rail" in journalism and politics. With the Norway massacre, it is the huge inconvenient elephant in the room.
This did not prevent Democracy Now's scathing critique of mainstream media's initial false reports suggesting a Muslim terrorist bombed Oslo and shot the kids at summer camp. Again, Zionism is relevant to mainstream's reporting, especially when CNN's Wolf Blitzer (who previously worked for AIPAC) falsely reports about a Muslim Olso shooter. Does someone need to explain to Amy Goodman that omitting a key, relevant portion of a story is equally deceptive?
If it's no accident that Amy Goodman is avoiding the issue of Zionism in the Norway shooting, why now? Her past coverage of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Palestine has consistently offered more balance and information then the other news networks.
What is it about certain acts of terrorism that leads to Amy Goodman's failure if coverage involves any real connection to Israel and Zionism?
Democracy Now's Norway shooting feature looks like a smoking gun of willful omission. If we find out what’s motivating this biased coverage, we might gain some insight into what’s behind Democracy Now's diminished coverage of the 9/11 Truth movement.
Help Us Transmit This Story
Add to Your Blogger Account
Put it On Facebook
Tweet this post
Print it from your printer
Email and a collection of other outlets
Try even more services