Now Sarah Palin is going after Rashid Khalidi as a "radical" professor. Gee, I know Khalidi and he's not very radical. He's sober, even a little middle of the road.
If you have any doubts about the disastrous effects of the Israel lobby, consider that CNN says that Khalidi "has accused the country [Israel] of 'occupying' Palestinian territories." This shows how little Americans know about this situation, how afraid the media are of the issue, and what a negative priority Palestinian human rights are here.
Related posts:
- Khalidi describes Palestinians in occupied territories as ‘helots with no rights’
- Throwing Khalidi Under Bus, Obama Is Said to Tap Emanuel, Former Volunteer in Israel
- Why Is Khalidi Silent?
- Here’s Hoping the Khalidi Story Knocks Obama’s Jewish Numbers Down
- ‘NYT’ dignifies calumny of Khalidi as ‘terrorist professor’
{ 31 comments }
“And among other things, Israel was described there as the perpetrator of terrorism instead of the victim. What we don't know, what we don't know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support, and the reason is the newspaper that has the tape, the Los Angeles Times, refuses to release it.”
Occupying what? As far as – some say – most US citizens don't even know how to find Palestinian Territories on a map (let alone history), the Israel lobby and their buddies among neocons and warmongers don't even need to rely on the ludicrous CNN's propaganda. Too bad they're the same people going to elect who's virtually the most powerful man on earth.
Like the neocon Bushies have said without blinking an eye, WE make our own reality and you guys can only write about it afterward, while we have moved on.
This is a risky move for the Zionists. It will soon be impossible for anyone on the left to even pretend that support for Israel is anything other than reactionary. It looks like the Zionist strategy is to sacrifice whatever remaining outposts they occupy among the Left (the Thomas Friedmans, Richard Cohens, etc.) and retreat to a new base among the "national greatness" brownshirts.
Might just be desperation, but it hasn't been wise to bet against these guys in the past.
for good measure
McCain Funded Work Of Palestinian His Campaign Hopes To Tie To Obama
(^)
During the 1990s, while he served as chairman (^) of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF (^).)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."
Here (^)
"It looks like the Zionist strategy is to sacrifice whatever remaining outposts they occupy among the Left (the Thomas Friedmans, Richard Cohens, etc.) and retreat to a new base among the "national greatness" brownshirts."
I agree, the whole thing seems to be moving to the right. For example, for years and years Noam Chomksy (correctly) pointed out how the two parties in America were virtually identical, and urged people to look for alternatives. The last two elections, however, Chomsky has gone from anarchist to urging a vote for the Democratic candidate for president. I suspect that Chomsky (who, if he isn't an official agent for Mossad or some Zionist entity, is at a minimum an "agent of the cause") feels that with the public slowly beginning to learn about Zionism and its agenda, that it's best to get those pesky "radicals" who he appeals to to get behind the mainstream candidate, thus ensuring the Zionist agenda will be carried out.
Interestingly, to this point the right has had more truthful information about Israel and Zionism than has the left, although it's starting to seep into the left as well. If both sides could come together, we'd have more strength in opposing the Zionist agenda that is carried out by both mainstream parties.
"It looks like the Zionist strategy is to sacrifice whatever remaining outposts they occupy among the Left (the Thomas Friedmans, Richard Cohens, etc.) and retreat to a new base among the "national greatness" brownshirts."
I agree, the whole thing seems to be moving to the right. For example, for years and years Noam Chomksy (correctly) pointed out how the two parties in America were virtually identical, and urged people to look for alternatives. The last two elections, however, Chomsky has gone from anarchist to urging a vote for the Democratic candidate for president. I suspect that Chomsky (who, if he isn't an official agent for Mossad or some Zionist entity, is at a minimum an "agent of the cause") feels that with the public slowly beginning to learn about Zionism and its agenda, that it's best to get those pesky "radicals" who he appeals to to get behind the mainstream candidate, thus ensuring the Zionist agenda will be carried out.
Interestingly, to this point the right has had more truthful information about Israel and Zionism than has the left, although it's starting to seep into the left as well. If both sides could come together, we'd have more strength in opposing the Zionist agenda that is carried out by both mainstream parties.
Palin: LA Times Tows Cows
Did she really say it?
I hope someone taped it.
The Khalidi brouhaha (only in Phil's tether), did not make front page news in the New York Times, nor the Washington Post, nowhere.
Phil is trying to sell papers.
(Richard moves into defensive mode.)
Definitely,
Phil's approach of "hoping" that the Jewish vote for Obama lessens, frankly sickens me.
The Jewish vote for Obama will be 90% on merit, but reduced by 15% for the fears that Sarah Palin and he invoke.
He doesn't like Dershowitz' relation to Finkelstein or Chomsky, and plays "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and instead willingly befriends the far right.
An idiotic approach, spoken in first person.
Thanks, Phil, for defending Rashid Khalidi: he, and Juan Cole as well, are two quite mild yet very just interpreters of events, yet they are persistently targeted by Neocon or Lobby "witch-hunts".
No, Witty, you can't turn this into Phil blowing something out of proportion.
It's not on the front-page of the NYT, sure, but the McCain campaign is pushing it HARD and it is making plenty of news; CNN devoted extensive airtime to it in primetime tonight.
The fact that the McCain campaign believes Obama daying nice words about a Palestinian scholar who has "accused Israel of occupying Palestinian territory" is very telling. It shows how uninformed Americans are on this issue. If they knew even the basics, the McCain folks wouldn't touch this, because it would be harmless. But they know very well that the average American sees Israel as "the good one" and sees all Arabs and Muslims the same: "the terrorists" who hate Israel because they are anti-Aemites (the new Nazis!) and who hate Americans for supporting Israel, among other crimes. They are trying to exploit this ignorance.
(Mind you, it won't work, but this has nothing to do with Americans havin coms sophisticated understanding of the issue: It's only because Obama has bent over backward to assuage the Israel-first crowd, ensuring that "credible" voices will vouch for him. Publicly, Obama has said all of the right words on Israel — at least in terms of meshing with the knee-jerk sensibilities of ignorant Americans. Because they basically like him, these voters won't be swayed by a late McCain attack on Khalidi.)
Equally telling is, as Phil points out, how CNN (and others) are treating this story. The coverage is rooted in a basic assumption that Israel is good and the Palestinians are bad. Anything negative that Khalidi has said about Israel is considered a sign that he is the moral equivalent (as McCain himself said) of a "neo-Nazi.") When is the last time a mainstream Israel-first voice was treated with scrutiny like this by the American media?
Contrarian,
I don't object to Phil commenting on it, calling it racist, idiotic.
I object to Phil HOPING that Jews don't vote for Obama, on the twisted basis that Jews will lose credibility with Obama.
Its an anti-conscience stand.
The Jews for Obama piece for example, emphasized that Obama is a prospective inspirational president, and worthy of vote on that merit.
In that cynical approach, he urges Jews to also approach the election cynically.
Idiotic.
Bingo!
I mean Bingo, Contrarian, and Phil explains the cause of the mass ignorance.
Witty's comment means nothing since there's not much difference
between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Nader, Greens, Constitutionalists, Ron Paul, Dennis K–now there's the difference
on the root problem with the USA's foreign policy and monetary policy, on why the pitiful giant is so sick.
Contrarian,
I think your comment on how uninformed and historically uninterested in being uninformed (about a thousand important issues, not just this one), is your important point.
People should think for themselves, not be spoonfed propaganda from any source.
How do you get there? You read, and from various perspectives. You respect various perspectives, as you think clearly enough to understand the failings and merits of each.
Thought.
Less propaganda and intentional omissions by our MSM and elected politicians might help?
Such a passive response.
You don't think that individuals have the right, responsibility and power to actually work to get informed?
Yes I do.
Would be a help if the MSM news contained more facts, less slanted opinion, especially for those individuals who are working multiple jobs or working full time and going to college, hence have less time
to ferret out news?
Witty,
I don't disagree with your most recent sentiments. If people took the time to read up on the Middle East (and 3,000 other issues) imagine how much further along we'd be?
But, of course, they don't. And you're quite right — it's not at all limited to the Middle East. But this is PRECISELY why the so-called Israel Lobby enjoys so much power; in the absence of a well-informed public, knee-jerk ignorance reigns, and that ignorance comes down on the side of Israel and an understanding of the I/P conflict as one of 'good' democrats vs. 'evil' terrorists. It's this dynamic that the McCain campaign is trying to feed off of.
Which reminds me, did the media inform us of what happened at court on October 28th concerning the "Franklin" (AIPAC) spy case that's been going on for years now?
Most Jews don't buy the simplistic good/evil line.
Some do.
And most sincerely care about Israel.
But, putting what you care about into the math of policy is a different beast than on/off litmus testing.
"prospective inspirational president, and worthy of vote on that merit"
This says about as much as saying "Obama is an idealist – the first since Kennedy." How about looking at where the candidate gets his money from, who he's surrounded himself with, how he's voted in the past. Do the research and see if the results add up to an "idealist" or an "inspirational" president. A "prospective inspirational president" he may be in many minds, but it won't matter if he continues to vote in favor of big money interests, and continues to surround himself with Israel-firsters.
Obama may well be more hawkish on Iran than McCain is. He doesn't want to remove troops from Iraq, rather wants to "realign" them, which is Democratic code for carrying out the same exact policy. He wants to increase the genocide in Afghanistan, and pursue an imperial adventure in Pakistan. He has maintained the status quo on the recent Georgian conflict, rather than correcting the record to reflect the fact that U.S.-sponsored forces started the whole thing. He hasn't voted to restore any of the civil liberties that have been taken away by the Patriot Act and other nonsense (he talked about it, and then voted the other way). He gets more money from Wall Street than does John McCain. He urged passage of the "bailout" and has never spoken about Glass Steagal or the Federal Reserve…
WItty, I'm not just talking about Jews, who — understandably — might take a more active interest in understanding Israel and the Middle East than most other Americans.
(That said, I believe many Jews do buy the good/evil line; there was a telling anecdote in the NYT piece yesterday about the Arab-Israeli film festival.)
The point I'm making is that most Americans know not a damn thing about Israel and the Middle East. They couldn't fine either on a map, they have no idea what 'the Occupied Territories' are, don't know what the 1967 borders refer to, or the right of return, or the Nakba, and on and on. All they know is that there's a conflict and the Israelis are 'like us,' while the dark-skinned Arabs are terrorists who hate Jews.
That is the average American's perception of the situation. It's why the McCain campaign, cunning political opportunists that they are, saw such an inviting target in the Obama-Khalidi link. And it's why the media automatically treats Khalidi as a "controversial figure" from whom Obama is obligated to prove distance.
CANT WAIT FOR THE DAY WHEN AMERICA STARTS TO TALK ABOUT THE RADICAL ZIONIST SUPPRESSING MEDIA COVERAGE OF ISRAELI MISDEEDS, AND RUNNING OUR MIDDLE EAST POLICY…RUNNING SPIES IN DIFFERENT GOVT AGENCIES ETC ETC ETC….
MAYBE ONE DAY…
Quite agree, Contrarian.
I'd add only that there ain't such a thing as a plane, pure terrorist in the real world.
There are people, States, entities, ready to use, now and then, terrorist means as far as they see fit.
Oops… "plain", of course. Sorry for my poor English.
Contrarian,
The best way to help is to get educated yourself, and humbly (literally) suggest reading to others.
The political herding approach (by paleos, neos, liberals, conservatives, everyone), is the wrong one.
Even the political herding that Phil attempts is the wrong one.
Its the absence of proposal, the lack of courage to state what one suggests, that is the problem.
McCain invokes Khalidi to scare. Phil invokes the invocation to scare.
Witty,
I share your utopian vision of a well-read populace, and I have done plenty of please-read-this-book evangelizing through the years, and will continue to do so.
But in the here and now, the Khalidi example and the media's treatment of it is a perfect example of how woefully ill-informed knee-jerk opinion is in this country and how badly one-sided and idiotic the media's coverage of the I/P conflict is.
And the combination of the media's coverage and the existingbiases of the American masses has a very real impact on public policy. It guarantees that there is no incentive for any national leader to say or do anything that will insult the Israel-first crowd — because to do so would be to run afoul of the public's mindless pro-Israel instincts and to be treated as another "controversial" figure by the media.
Except the public has nearly entirely dismissed the Khalidi invocation as inconsequential.
The Washington Post today described the Khalidi invocation as "idiot wind", simultaneously harshly criticizing the McCain campaign, and praising Khalidi's role and scholarship (even as they disagree with his conclusions).
Replacing one propaganda approach with another is NOT the way to improve democracy.
The only path is genuine personal and political education. And, for it to be genuine and not a repitition REQUIRES reading from sources with multiple perspectives.
Comments on this entry are closed.