Taking on the Zionist lobby head-on is well nigh impossible.
I have written a stunning piece on Werritty, Israel and a neo-con plot to attack Iran. It contains information not published anywhere, even here. I have circulated it to several national newspapers, for each of which I have written many times. I have never had a piece refused before.
Several national papers have checked out my story factually and nobody has found a single hole in it. But nobody will publish it. I reproduce below every email I have received from any of these papers in reply. They show what a hot potato a serious anti-Zionist is – and I strongly suspect that the repeated inability of editors to make decisions which emerges from these emails shows they need on this subject to consult their proprietors.
The emails are given with the source removed and which is from which paper disguised, because I don’t wish to attack anyone in particular for this generic fear of the Israeli lobby, and also because I hope I may one day work for them again. In fact I still have not received an actual “no” from anybody – just a repeated batting off of the hot potato. The story is so good nobody can actually think of an excuse to refuse it, but they dare not accept it.
I think some of the individuals involved are ashamed. Each of the papers have had the article between five and ten days – which when you consider how the newspaper industry works, is an astonishing period in which nobody is able to make a decision.
“Sorry. … is the editor.”
“Just back in after being out most of day. Jury (i.e. editor) is still out on this one. I’ve spoken to …, and emailed him your copy. Will report back in the morning.”
“Dear Craig, sorry to have been slow back, but I’m on holiday. I’ve looked at your earlier email and can’t find the attachment you mention (of the long piece), but think I’ve got the basic idea. I’m no longer comment editor and don’t commission pieces, but would recommend getting in touch with …(who is comment editor, currently editing …) if you’re thinking of a comment piece. If it’s more news, then … worth talking to, or maybe one of the reporters who’s worked on the Werrity case. Let me know how you get on, all best,”
“Hi Craig OK, had some feedback from the editor. We can’t do anything on this this week, for various reasons. In an ideal world, we would like to hold on to it for another week. We would then have our politics team make some inquiries and then run your piece – or a version of it – alongside a news story on this particular issue (providing of course that our team can come up with one). Obviously there are quite a few ifs and buts here – we can’t guarantee that we will run the piece – so I completely understand if you feel that this is unsatisfactory and that you want to cut your losses and take it elsewhere. In that case, we’ll simply pay you the £200 we’ve already agreed and hope you will consider us again the next time you have something.”
“OK, thanks Craig. Will give you a call or drop you a line tomorrow.”
“I’m temporarily out of action- deal w …?”
“Well, we can pay £200 to hang on to it until tomorrow and then I’ll have to talk to the editor about what he wants to pay to run it but if we ran it at the length you sent it, it would be a minimum of, say, £1,500”
“Yes, there was talk of it on the Today programme as well.”
“Yes, sorry for delay in replying. The answer is we are interested in your piece. It’s too early in the week to say that we’re definitely going to run it. Can we sit on it for the time being and talk again late tomorrow? Naturally, we’ll pay you for the piece”
“Good stuff.”
“Hi Craig. Thanks for your email. This other meeting might allow us to take the story on and reprise a lot of the material which was left out of our original story. What do you think?”
“Hello Craig Thanks for this. Let me have a read and a think about it and then I’ll get back to you. Cheers”
“Craig Having now had a look at your piece, let me have a bit more time to think about it, would you? best wishes”
“Craig I’ve been out of town and offline until this morning. But I’m no longer comment editor, so I don’t commission any articles anyhow best wishes”
“Craig. As I mentioned, I am off this week. I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you on Saturday. I have handed your piece over to …, the Foreign editor, and recommended it to him. He is extremely experienced and will have its best wishes at heart as well as the knowhow to secure its place in the paper. I do hope he and you can make it work. With good wishes”
“Craig.. Thank you. I have read it and have now shown it to the editor. He is having a think. I’ll get back to you as soon as I know anything … ”
UPDATE
The banned article can now be read here
Shameful… the British way. All very polite – you can almost hear the rattling of teacups – yet stonewalling.
.
Get it out, whatever way you can. Get it on the web/ social networking sites and so will be spread virally. Maximise exposure on all appropriate oppositional sites. Yes, try all the outlets suggested by the people here.
.
Good on you! Go for it!
Herbie, “Blair’s article for The Guardian …. There seem to be more that are censored than are allowed and even those which are allowed are critical of the disgusting creature.”
.
Just had a look. I read most of the ones that are deleted before they were censored. They were all inoffensive to the extreme and many rather funny.
.
You aren’t even allowed to make fun of a monster like Blair!
.
What are the Guardian editors so frightened of?
.
Another possible publication site would be What Really Happened, hosted by Michael Rivero. I believe he is based in Hawai and is frequently critical of the US/Israel coalition and the continual drumbeats for World War III (well somebody has to sell the bullets). You might also try Wayne Madsen Report although I think you have to subscribe in order to comment. Still worth trying. Madsen is/was a Washington insider and a frequent thorn in the side of the dross coming out of US mainstream media. Good luck
Sorry, double post to Tournesol, thought the first one was lost.
Craig, the Morning Star claims to be for Peace and Socialism. It might not have the readership of some of the more powerful dailies, but this piece, with links on this blog, could see it go global. It’s frightening to think the Israeli lobby has so much power, and as posted yesterday there are only 3 countries who do not have a Rothschild Central Bank – the world is greed gone mad, greed for money, greed for oil.
Herbie writes: ‘The only important thing about Blair’s article for The Guardian is just how many comments have been censored.’
My exact sentiments too. ‘Tis a pity the Guardian is not as it was in the late fifties and early sixties.
Have I lost a comment, or is it in quarantine?
Anybody in Birmingham wanting white poppies to go with their red ones they can get them at the health store in Allison Street (Friends of the Earth) and also in the chaplaincy at the University.
Ken, the story on Haaretz/Guardian/anti-Semitism.
Haaretz quote:
.
While Elliot defended the paper’s commitment to balanced reporting, he spoke of three incidents, saying “in the last nine months I have upheld complaints against language within articles that I agreed could be read as anti-Semitic.”
.
Such incidents included, according to Elliot, “references to Israel/U.S. ‘global domination’ and the term ‘slavish’ to describe the U.S. relationship with Israel; and, in an article on a lost tribe of Mallorcan Jews, what I regarded as a gratuitous reference to ‘the island’s wealthier families.'”
.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/u-k-s-guardian-owns-up-to-inadvertent-cases-of-anti-semitism-1.394851
.
I’m a regular reader of the on-line Guardian and I have never read the words ‘global domination’ in an article about Israel.
.
“slavish” might be, at certain times, an accurate descriptions of US/Israeli relations.Context is important.
.
And the last … “a lost tribe of Mallorcan Jews, what I regarded as a gratuitous reference to ‘the island’s wealthier families”.
.
I went to the original Guardian article, it had be censored.
Andy, I agree. Calling the US slavish (servile might be a better word) in making the Arab world a more amenable place to Israel through NATO wars in the Middle East is not anti-Semitic, but a clear statement of fact. But that makes other NATO countries, including the UK, slavish too.
What I think is happening at the Guardian is a prolonged campaign by one of these pro Israeli groups who complain to the editor etc,same is happening on the comment is free pages they just press the abuse button and report what they consider anti semitic comments but the reality is that these comments are anti Israeli government policy and anti the groups who push the Israel agenda in the media. It is disgraceful but anywhere on the internet is open to abuse by these people. The Guardian has gone well down in my estimation, This and the constant anti Assange stories have really made me not read the paper anymore. Their comment is free section also has an American section and you will find a lot of the pro war,pro Israeli viewpoint being aired there by Guardian guest writers.
Sorry to be off topic but just received this email from Avaaz.org
‘…Three years ago, public pressure pushed through a ban of these cruel bombs. But now the US is lobbying nations to quietly sign a new law that allows their use — signing the death warrant for thousands of other children. Most countries are still on the fence on how to vote. Only if we raise the alarm across the world can we shame our governments to block this deadly decision.’
Please sign the petition
http://www.avaaz.org/en/cluster_bombs_ii_b/?vl
I just signed a petition calling on the British government not to attack Iran.
http://www.stopwar.iparl.com/petition/6
Hope it’s not against the sites rules to solicit support.
You really cannot see why papers think twice about publishing allegations of a covert Jewish plot to subvert UK foreign policy?
The answer must lie in a ‘Zionist lobby’? (Part of the proof for which lies in the quality of your work: it is ‘stunning’, you say.)
The journalist Matthew Paris once asked Enoch Powell if he felt embarrassed by those who became his supporters. Powell affected not to be: ‘I take the support I can get.’ On any serious analysis, this was an inadequate response – it may not have reflected Powell’s true view.
As I observed in a previous comment, you encourage the readers of your posts – through a combination,
inter alia, of your erstwhile access to information, and their obvious vulnerability – in various most unfortunate beliefs. (For example, posts above refer to Zionist censorship, sinister control of the Israeli lobby, Zionist overlords, and one even implies that an Oxford academic was murdered by, or with the complicity of, the UK government.) It is unclear what, if any, responsibility you take for this.
It is very sad. You simultaneously harm these people and damage your own credibility. Bluntly, if any part of the establishment has sought to marginalise you, then you play into its hands.
I will not trouble you again with my views. But I would invite you to consider them, in the spirit of good faifh in which they are offered.
they are intended.
Haha, Craig-I followed the link to the Blair-Faith-Scandal. Have you noticed the deleted comments? Looks like Moderators running amok with chainsaws!
The Guardian is loosing money -£35 million last year .I wonder if this has anything to do with it’s editorial policy ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/guardian-to-cut-jobs-after-16335m-loss-2298699.html
joe templeton Zionist censorship, sinister control of the Israeli lobby.
Happens to be a fact which is well sourced,very well sourced. I suggest you do some real research before commenting on something you obviously know little about or are just trying to pour scorn on for no other reason that you support the Israeli side.
I’m wondering if the Guardian and perhaps the Mail aren’t working on something of their own, from parallel sources. Both have been pretty active on the Foxwerritty story previously. Also I am wondering if the hasbara network hasn’t intensified its efforts as several sensitive matters coincided: the new offensive against Iran, the Gaza flotilla and the continuing efforts by the Palestinians at the UN.
Your story will get read wherever you put it. But you’ll only be preaching to the converted if you put it here or on an identifiably antizionist medium. Catch-22. For what it’s worth, I suggest persisting with the MSM, and giving it a couple of days more. Can you talk face-to-face to some of the friendlier respondents to your emails? Or how about a large regional like the Yorkshire Post or EDP?
Glasgow Herald, Press and Journal, Western Mail?
Blair’s a piece of work, isn’t he? Couldn’t wait to get into Iraq, and now he’s bleeding St Francis? Horrible, horrible link, Craig. Please don’t do it again.
John Goss: “Andy, I agree. Calling the US slavish (servile might be a better word) in making the Arab world a more amenable place to Israel through NATO wars in the Middle East is not anti-Semitic, but a clear statement of fact. But that makes other NATO countries, including the UK, slavish too.”
.
“Elliot, “references to Israel/U.S. ‘global domination’ and the term ‘slavish’ to describe the U.S. relationship with Israel… ”
.
What are these “references” ?
Why are Guardian readers not allowed to debate.
Israeli Lobby does not manipulate the Media, they Instruct them what to say, and how to say it
,
although they were ‘embarrassed’ when found out
,
Lorna Fitzsimons unwittingly spills the beans
,
So there is no truth Craig Murray’s contentions, because his material is “libellous”, and that is why the various papers have not taken up his work. Furthermore the tactic of paying 200 quids hush money with promise of oodles more if published, don’t smack of suppression of truth.
,
I am glad I found the “fraud” that Craig is, thanks to the ziophile shill trolling this site, I am convinced now, oh joy!
,
PS why does anyone post in Guardian?
Craig Murray, your blog has been there for me when I’ve felt like truth and honesty had gone down the drain.
.
Lots of Thanks.
Andy, I would defend their (Guardian readers) rights to debate, and yours, but the admission of Elliot in the link you embedded to being anti-Semitic might appease readers of Jewish World, which seems likely what was lobbied for, but does not detract from the fact that US/Israel relations in certain contexts can be seen as slavish. The further fact that ‘global domination’ is on the US agenda with the full sanctioning of many Israeli lobbyists is clear to anyone with a brain that has kept an eye on world affairs over the past decade.
After robustly defending Assange against the latest ghastly smear published in the Guardian, an appalling article written by a journalist called Karin Olsson from “Expressen” which is the Swedish version of The Sun, I got into really hot water on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, which I jokingly dubbed Talk is Cheap.
I was criticised by one of their journalists for being facually wrong in my description of the law on rape, without the said journalist saying whether he was referring to Swedish or UK rape laws, which I thought was highly relevant. But asking the question, questioning the competence of Guardian journalists, their level of knowledge of Swedish law in regard to uncorroberated witness testimony and whether or not such testimony could result in a conviction, without any physical evidence that a crime, had, in fact, been committed; was too much for the Guardian.
First my comments about Swedish law and the minefield that is Swedish sexual/gender politics; were removed, then my comments about why they were removed where… removed, but without acknowledgement that they’ed been removed for unamed breeches of “community standards”, then I suddenly appeared on the “blacklist”, that is all my comments, on any subject, were suddenly subject to “pre-moderation” which effectively means… being banned from commenting on Talk is Cheap altogether, as an enemy of the Guardian.
And it is somewhat galling to see Tony Blair, who in healthy and functioning democracy would already be behind bars for warcrimes, given space to wank off about his faith, in terms that can only be described as quasi-religious gobbledegook.
I wonder, does anyone know if Alan Rusbridger is a Christian too, that is, Blair’s style of Christian?
Jt – you have a very good point. The Guardian has been losing money hand over fist over the last couple of years, and has had to do some corporate restructuring. It appointed Andrew Miller as CEO last year. His previous job had been CFO of Trader Media Group, which is jointly owned by the Guardian’s parent, GMG, and Apax Partners. Apax Partners was founded by Sir Ronald Cohen, whose record is a bit ambiguous. On the one hand, he was given the Jubilee Award for services to Israeli business, by none other than Netanyahu; on the other, he is involved through the Portland Trust in developing the Palestinian private sector. Which could mean anything. Apax also has a dubious past which includes the disappearance of a workers’ pension fund. It has been associated with GMG in other partnerships.
.
I’m sure this post is completely off topic. Unless the Guardian is cash-strapped, in which case I’m not so sure.
Oh, yes. More on Cohen, Apax and the opaque charity:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555473/Watchdog-looks-into-Brown-aides-charity.html
“But you’ll only be preaching to the converted if you put it here or on an identifiably antizionist medium. Catch-22. For what it’s worth, I suggest persisting with the MSM, and giving it a couple of days more. Can you talk face-to-face to some of the friendlier respondents to your emails?”
.
That would be my reaction too. Can you phone them? They’ll hardly refuse to take your calls? If all goes to all you could go to e.g. Information Clearing House, but much better to be published in the British MSM if possible. (No wonder you were pissed off, by the way!)
Of interest?
.
AFGHANISTAN PUBLIC MEETING IN PARLIAMENT
.
6.30pm, Tuesday 22 November
House of Commons
Committee Room 9, House of Commons, SW1A 0AA
(St Stephens entrance, nearest tube Westminster)
.
Organised by the Afghanistan Withdrawal Group of MPs
Supported by Stop the War Coalition
.
The Russians in Afghanistan 1979-89
LESSONS FOR TODAY
Speaker: Rodric Braithwaite
Chair: Paul Flynn MP
.
Rodric Braithwaite is author of the much-reviewed Afgantsy: The Russians in
Afghanistan, 1979-89, published in March this year. A former diplomat who spent
much of his career dealing with Russia, Braithwaite was British Ambassador in
Moscow at the time of the Soviet withdrawal.
This is why we need to set up a comprehensive online newspaper with contributors experienced in particular fields.
Issues the government wants buried can be kept on the boil. Issues such as the death of Dr Kelly in which a doctor has started proceedings for a judicial review of Grieve’s decision not to hold a coroner’s inquest.
The Guardian Media Group’s chief financial officer, also a recent arrival, also came from Trader Media (co-prop, Apax). His name is Darren Singer. According to TM’s website, both Miller and Singer are GMG’s representatives on the TM board. Cosy. I’d ask how much control the Scott Trust has over GMG policy these days. If I thought it knew.
.
*bite*