Sunday, July 22nd | 10 Av 5778

September 18, 2014 10:40 am

Top Israeli Journalist Exposes ‘Industry of Lies’ in International and Local Media (VIDEO)

avatar by Dave Bender

Email a copy of "Top Israeli Journalist Exposes ‘Industry of Lies’ in International and Local Media (VIDEO)" to a friend
Ben-Dror Yemini. Photo: University of Cork, Ireland

Ben-Dror Yemini. Photo: University of Cork, Ireland.

A veteran Israeli investigative journalist, known for decades of hard hitting local reporting, now says, “Enough!” to what he calls an “industry of lies” in the international and local press obsessively defaming and demonizing Israel.

“They have simply gone mad,” Ben-Dror Yemini said in a no-holds barred interview with Israel’s Channel 2 News, aired over the weekend, in the run up to the English-language publication of his account, “Industry of Lies.”

Internationally respected for his non-partisan reports for the local Maariv daily, as well as a host of other news outlets over the years, Yemini said that, in light of the grotesque development of a rising Islamic State and other brutal jihadists, that the narrow focus and near-exclusive blame on Israel for the state of the middle east “…is exploding in our faces today.”

“The monster is not Israel, the monster is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” charges Yemini, listing far-lesser covered killing fields across the middle east and Africa.

“There is no connection between the thousands killed each month throughout the world because of jihad, in Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen – certainly Iraq and Syria – and Israel,” he stressed to the interviewer.

But as to his own politics, Yemini stressed, he’s no right-winger by any standards, calls the settlement enterprise as no less than “disastrous for Zionism,” and supports a “two-state” solution for settling the conflict with the Arabs.

However, he points out, comparatively, that “every territory we left was taken over by radical Islam,” he noted. “Does it mean we should make the same mistake in Judea and Samaria; in the West Bank? No.”  But “does it mean we should continue with settlements? Absolutely not.”

Watch the interview:

[iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”//″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>]

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • E.Philipse

    Please translate,into Dutch.

  • Jim Pan

    There is much to be gained from war.

    (1) Money via the sale of weapons. The same supplier has been known to supply all opposing sides

    (2) Natural resources: oil, natural gas, metals

    Who would gain from war? Answer: The resource guzzling corporations(mostly owned by Khazars)

    Prime suspects: The Khazar – Goldman Banking Corporation, Morgan – Khazar Bank etc etc

    • Moshe ben Maimon

      You are a fool of highest proportion.
      No justification needed.

  • mr. C

    One slight ammendment

    ‘ “Enough!” to what he calls an “industry of lies” in the international and local press obsessively defaming and demonizing RELIGIOUS JEWS.

    “They have simply gone mad,”.. “Industry of Lies.” ‘

    “Midah k’neged midah”

    “Mum she’becha al..”

    “Tol Korah mi’bein Eine’cha”

  • Ilbert Phillips

    Once one accepts the reality of the Islamists and their influence in the Middle East, we can then have serious discussions of what conditions must exist for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. While I objected to the President Obama’s Iraq and Afghanistan policy, it is has become the gift that keep giving. Islamists were being kept under control by strong and horrible dictators such as the Shah of Iran, Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. Once those leaders were replaced, naive American foreign policy makers assumed that democratic loving people would replace these “bad guys.” Well it has some ways to go.

  • Wonderful. The momentum needs to be kept up.

  • Herb Grossman

    Even before radical Islam took over Gaza, in 2007, there were rockets (2005-2007) under the Palestinian Authority. And the suicide bombings of the second Intifada, 2001-2003, were also under the PA and perpetrated for the most part by its militia, the Al Aksa Martyr’s Brigade (a/k/a the Tanzim). Which is even more reason not to make the same mistake by turning over the West Bank. Continuing with autonomy in the WB, with overall security and border control by Israel, is all that makes sense now, and if the Arabs become peaceful, more vacant, non-strategic land can later be turned over to the autonomous entity.

  • steven L

    Antisemitism is 2,000 years old in the West and 13 centuries old in the Muslim nation, and, is constantly reanimated by the Western world irrationality and JEALOUSY! The Jews are the victims.
    The West refuses to seek treatment for their mental sickness.

  • Jonah

    Yes the world has gone mad and a two state solution will not solve the madness. What else can you call a coalition being lead by an Islamic madman to fight Islamic madness. We need Australian law enforcement in America to protected us from a madman. Unfortunately the 600 Australians being sent to fight Isis will probably be shot in the back by those that have infiltrated the coalition. Western rules of engagement provides for the prosecution of their military for the improper killing of jihadists. Western boots on the ground are a turky shoot for the jihadists. Until america has a new president ,house rules, or should I say White House rules favor Islam. That is madness. Israels countinued settlements is not madness, you will need more space to house those Jews being run out if their countries by Islamic madness.

  • Aussie

    Please translate your Israeli comments into English

  • Bernard Ross

    the left just cant come to the right conclusions even after being slapped in the face with facts. At least C should be annexed and there should be no restriction on Jewish settlement. the legal international reason for the existence of Israel is based on the need for Jewish settlement in Israel. there is no reason to support Tel Aviv and not the rest for jewish settlement. It appears that as some jews have settled they have stopped caring about the other Jews left to come. this Jew got his piece of Israel and now thinks that the others do not matter.

  • Shalom-Hillel

    Mr. Yemini is articulate and his conclusions cannot be denied. This books needs to be translated into English and all major languages.

  • Barry Poladsky

    There is already a two-state solution, Israel and Jordan. A third judenrein, so-called Palestinian state is a sham.

  • יואל נצרים

    מה שנכון, נכון! כבר די מכות עלינו לעומת האוכלוסיות הרצחנים בעולם! אנו יהודים במזרח התיכון–זהו, אנו בטח אשמים! לא, מספיק לנו שעירים לעזאזל בגלל מצוקות האחרים!

    • Kerry Berger

      It would be nice if there was some English translation of any Hebrew remarks.

      • Michael

        Cut and paste: Google translate.

      • What is true is true. Enough Israel bashing by comparison to the murderous populations in the world. We Jews in the Middle East are surely to blame. We are fed up with being the scapegoats because of the desperation of others. This is a rough translation of the first comment.

      • Ron Blower

        Try Google Translation: it’ll give you an idea of what’s being said.

    • Leah

      He is still entirely wrong about the settlements, parrotting exactly the same industry of lies he accuses others of promoting. That is largely land stolen from Jews in Gush Etzyon, or state land that is legally Israel’s under the LoN Mandate. The perfidy of Britain at the time, and the profoundly antisemitic lies emanating from the corrupt UN today, cannot change that legal and historical fact.
      On a practical note, the settlements are vital in order to provide Israel with more geographical depth. Given the history of the last 100 years, Israel would have been making a big mistake not building them.

      • Julian Clovelley

        Sorry Leah but you are simply incorrect, and if you go back to the original mandate it is perfectly clear why. But first you would have to fully justify the use of a chain leading back from the UN partition resolutions etc via the UN charter to the original 1922 Mandate

        Accepting for this discussion your premise that the that the 1922 Mandate is valid, when used for the purpose you are using it, then one must also accept the preamble which directs the Mandate document at the British Government, as an implementation of the Balfour Declaration. This means that the text of that Declaration becomes dominant in the matter. The text in full is pretty clear:

        “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of the object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious’ rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.

        There is no inherited right (from the League/British Mandate) to build exclusively Jewish settlements in the Palestinan/Arab areas of the Partition zones – indeed quite the reverse would seem to be the case. A misinterpretation of the term “close settlements” in the 1922 is sometimes attempted, ignoring both the fact that in the 1922 Mandate the term is “close settlement and intensive cultivation” (Article 11) and the fact that the term close settlement is clarified by the French text as meaning “intensive”

        For these settlements to be exclusively Jewish then to comply with the Balfour Declaration – and therefore the 1922 Mandate – there would have to be a presumption that in 1922 the Arabs in Palestinian had no civil or religious rights – effectively a doctrine of Terra Nullius, a concept long overthrown in International Law – recently in Australia by the Mabo Case, and which would be absolutely ludicrous when applied to the areas under the former Ottoman Empire, where the status of an inhabitant – either Jewish or Arab or Christian or Druze etc – was more likely to be de facto that of subject than citizen. In terms of rights all inhabitants were in the same boat.

        The assertion you are making, Leah, is a common Zionist assertion – Virtually nobody accepts it except Zionists and their supporters – It isn’t a legal argument, but a political assertion – with, in my interpretation, absolutly no substance.

        The only time I have seen the existence of the Settlements and the Occupation given reasonable validity in International Law (albeit still questionable) was on the basis of temporary defence considerations (see Julius Stone who died in 1985). After fifty years a temporary defense considerartion begins to look more like de facto annexation and invasion – and most certainly a violation of the Balfour Declarations intent, which is the intent on which you seem to base your own assertion.

        It won’t wash!