So I was reading this JPost article, and the comments therein and wondering at the making and faking of facts to advance an agenda. A Grade 2 Trevino-in-Malyasia article (these excellence grades go from 5 - paid article indistinguishable from ordinary journalism to 1 - paid article completely obvious in its backscratching, as assessed by a non-English speaking reader). Prime example - this nonsensical statement
But the fulfillment of the ancient prophecy of “the ingathering of exiles” has also made it easier to annihilate the Jews as they now congregate in one small land.
Yes, we are to believe that a Rabbi living in the USA does not know that there are more Jews living outside Israel than within its borders, and it is therefore mathematically impossible to "annihilate the Jews".
Thankfully, both the right wing and left wing, in Britain at least, are beginning to weigh in on such nonsense. Here, on the subject of the BBC in the UK, is Peter Oborne in the Daily Telegraph
1. Mr Humphrys told listeners that "there will be high-level meetings to find ways of Iran giving up its nuclear weapons programme in exchange for sanctions being dropped". Unfortunately for Humphrys, Iran does not have a nuclear weapons programme, and US intelligence knows this even if he doesn't. It regularly briefs Congress that Iran has no Iranian nuclear weapons programme. It is incredible that a senior BBC broadcaster should make this mistake, bearing in mind that as recently as February this year the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, repeated that "the intelligence we have is they have not made the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon". Israel itself agrees: in April last year Israeli chief Chief of Staff, General Benny Gantz, said the same thing in an interview with Haaretz in April 2012.
2. Humphrys failed to challenge Mark Regev when he said that “They [Iran] still deny access to IAEA inspectors.” The facts are that Iran has declared 17 nuclear facilities to the IAEA, that all of them are open to IAEA inspection; that all of them are operating according to the relevant design specifications provided to the IAEA; and, most important of all, the IAEA has never detected any diversion of nuclear material from these nuclear facilities for possible military use elsewhere. (True, Iran has not granted the IAEA access to the Parchin military site, but Iran is not breaking any agreement with the IAEA by refusing to do so, since it isn’t a nuclear site declared to the IAEA.) This (untrue) statement about Iran by Regev is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. Over 30 years ago, on 19 June 1981, the Security Council passed resolution 487, which demanded that Israel open its secret nuclear facilities to IAEA calling “upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards”. Israel has yet to do so.
3. Humphrys then failed to challenge Regev’s claim that Iran “continues to violate UN Security Council resolutions”. He could have pointed out that this is a bit rich coming from Israel, which holds the world record for violating Security Council resolutions that require action by it and it alone, about 30 in all.
Here, on the subject of the NBC in USA, is Glenn Greenwald
In fact, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a 2005 religious edict banning the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and in January of this year, Iranian official Ramin Mehmanparast declared: "There is nothing higher than the exalted supreme leader's fatwa to define the framework for our activities in the nuclear field." He added: "We are the first country to call for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. When the highest jurist and authority in the country's leadership issues a fatwa, this will be binding for all of us to follow. So, this fatwa will be our top agenda."
The following month, Khamenei himself said: "We believe that nuclear weapons must be eliminated. We don't want to build atomic weapons." The New York Times noted that "American officials say they believe that Ayatollah Khamenei exercises full control over Iran's nuclear program."
Iran's top leadership has been making similarly unambiguous statements for almost a full decade, even taking out a full page ad in the New York Times in 2005 to counter the growing clamor in the US for a military attack by proclaiming that Iran had no desire for nuclear weapons, was not pursuing them, and wanted transparency, accountability and peace - exactly what Brian Williams told his viewers last night was a "sudden" and newfound claim.
But whether Iran is sincere is an entirely separate question from the one about which Williams radically misled his viewers last night. While Iran's actual intentions regarding nuclear weapons may be debatable, the fact that they have repeatedly and over the course of many years emphatically disclaimed any interest in acquiring nuclear weapons is not debatable. It is indisputable fact that they have done exactly that. There is nothing new or "sudden" about this claim.
To the contrary, Iran has been trying to make Americans hear for years that they have no interest in nuclear weapons. Indeed, they have repeatedly made clear that they have not only banned such weapons but favor region-wide nuclear disarmament, including of Israel's vast nuclear arsenal, which actually exists. It is Israel, not Iran, which has steadfastly refused to allow inspections of its nuclear arsenal (despite UN demands they do so) or to join the NPT or other conventions designed to monitor and regulate nuclear weapons.