On New Year's I kept wondering if I'd made a mistake posting about Meet the Press, the fact that four of six participants are Jewish this Sunday, in a discussion of foreign policy. Was I imposing a quota on foreign-policy discussions? I decided that I don't have regrets, and that if I am imposing a quota, it's entirely justifiable. My father's generation objected to quotas when they would have limited Jewish enrollment at law schools etc to 30 percent or so, as I recall (help me Seth Lipsky, or some other neocon). This is a situation in which 67 percent of the participants are Jews.
Obama's adviser Dan Kurtzer agrees with me. In his recent book Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, he said: "The Clinton team could have benefited from greater regional and cross-cultural expertise....the absence of Arab expertise was handicapping U.S. diplomacy...'There was no expert on our team on Islam or on Muslim perspectives,' said a former Clinton Administration official."
It is true that if M.J. Rosenberg of TPM was on the panel, as he should be--and will soon be, mark my word--I wouldn't raise this point. If Adam Horowitz of Huffpo. But Rosenberg and Horowitz have taken highly-independent positions on Israel/Palestine. I don't think you can say that about Richard Engel, David Gregory, Jeffrey (former IDF jobnik) Goldberg, or Andrea Mitchell. American Jewry is deeply invested in Zionism, by and large. Zionism casts a shadow of suspicion over Jewish opinion re the Middle East. Unfortunate but true.
Last night I was at a party with a mixed crowd. I'm an assimilationist, as are most Americans; this is the sort of party I go to. Jews and non-Jews. And I can tell you that the attitude of outrage I heard from non-Jews re Gaza was altogether different from the shaded nuanced view of the matter that a Jewish friend had. Sad but true, and predictable.
Here is one brave American Jewess willing to tell it like it is, no holds barred.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
I'm impressed with the impact of Obama's silence. By not reciting, as Bush/Pelosi/Reid/Hoyer did, the AIPAC talking points, albeit under cover of not undermining our one and only President, he is like a professor asking, is that all you have to say? The silence becomes pressure on the student or supporters of more Israeli aggression to elaborate on why they think their canned answer is the right answer. The more they talk, the more their lack of thought shows through, their logic unravels. Let the panel of undisclosed Zionists pretend to be journalists, pretend to speak for America, while trying to predict what Obama will have to say, eventually, when it is time. Let them exhaust themselves dancing around the truth. Objective realism can no longer be ignored, when it is the perspective of our new President.
I would say, reasonable and true.
Jews don't have the luxury of self-anonimity. We are intimate with someone that is exposed to violence.
AND, we oppose self-censorship about Hamas' nature and actions.
And Phil,
You are wrong about pointing out suspected Jewish ethnicity of journalists.
You would have a more relevant point identifying the specific perspectives of the journalists.
It would be relevant to describe how your journalism is more balance, complete, insightful, RELIABLE.
The sheer number of Jews in the Media is surely a problem when it regards Israel since most American Jews have compromised views..i.e.mixed loyalty. I objected wherever I could when an ex AIPAC staffer (Wolf Blitzer) was the mediator of a presidential debate. He should not have been allowed. This sort of bs needs to be watched and someday eliminated. At this point there is little to be done except send pissy little emails.
Focusing habitually on ethnicity or association is a VERY BAD precedent for journalism.
You then give others permission to choose other association as the basis of distrust.
Say, those that post at Mondoweiss might be damned by association (me included), or those that voted for Nader in 2000 (me included), or those that think of themselves as humanists (me included), or those that are Arabs, or those that are Muslims.
A STUPID precedent, even more STUPID to exagerate.
I think Phil makes a good point. My experience has been the same: Generally (not always — but almost always) the opinions of Jews I talk to re: Middle East is very different from what I hear from non-Jews. Of course, there are plenty of Jews who are Israel-skeptics, just as there are plenty of non-Jews who are devout Zionists.
Yes, as Witty says, commentators should be judged by what they say, and not their ethnicity. But MTP is the pre-eminient opinion-shaping show. When it devotes a panel to Israel/Middle East issues, it's just as foolish to stack it with Jewish voices as it was for Clinton to stack his Middle East team with Jews. This is not an indictment of Jews; its an indictment of not reaching out to include other vantage points.
A much worse precedent is to run a clandestine program, such as lying about Israel and pretend to be a balanced person. America needs to recognize and deal with the ELEPHANT in the room. I totally resent Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people. If there were more Jews like Meir Kahane I might be anti-semitic, as it is I merely depise the racist policies of Israel.
Interesting is Phil's point about the high level of gentile outrage at his New Year's Party. I feel it too. But why more than over Lebanon in 2006, or Beirut in 1982? (I barely noticed Beirut). Probably because it seems like such an unfair fight, and because virtually all the Arabs are so explicitly out front in accepting a two state solution. (And Hamas could be lured there too.) It's so obvious that Israel doesn't want that, and prefers force as its preferred solution.
Maybe if mainstream media in US were a little bit less colonised by the staff with divided loyalties, such images like these would grace the first pages of the newspapers:
I appreciate that Phil points out the stacking of the so-called ME experts in the news and opinion programs. That they are almost uniformly pro-Zionist almost goes without saying. One doesn't get invited if they do not spout the official narrative on Israel. I once wrote Jeff Greefield when he was on ABC's Nightline and asked why he never had Noam Chomsky on when the topic was the IP conflict. He never responded to me directly but in a later interview said it was because Chomsky could not answer questions in short soundbites. This is and was a lie but serves their purpose of keeping out thoughful examination of the conflict.
Before I was banned from LA Jewsih Journal, it was always the same response when I cited various authors. If it was an Arab/Palestinian/Muslim cited, they were dismissed outright as hopelessly biased. If it was a Jewish author challenging the Zionist narrative, they were declared self-hating. If it was an official Israeli source or Jewish author/historian, my posts would be removed and would subsequently get banned (after gobs of abuse being heaped on me – including people trying to cause trouble for me at work).
I hope that one day Phil will note a Jewish spokesperson that isn't spouting an exclusively pro-Zionist position. I hope that one day US audiences can be exposed to discussions on the level that they're often held in Israel.
Until then, I expect every Jew that gets airtime to be unquestioningly pro-Israel and will claim US and Israeli interests are the same, regardless of the harm that might cause the US.
~
"And I can tell you that the attitude of outrage I heard from non-Jews re Gaza was altogether different from the shaded nuanced view of the matter that a Jewish friend had."
I wonder how long he public MSM discourse can continue not reflecting the obvious impression that most Americans get from this latest violence?
I think the Bush admin got along for a long time simply denying the existence of public opinion, and "creating their own reality." But eventually a Steve Colbert stands up at the WH correspondents dinner and points out that he isn't wearing any clothes and hasn't been for years.
I think that moment is underestimated in the collapse of support for Bush. When will someone do the same for the Israel/Palestine issue? Someone with credibility just standing up and saying: look, the situation isn't black and white like we've been pretending for decades.
Crimson Ghost, better to give the full link to Jennifer Loewenstein's excellent article so that future readers can find it.
There is actually some truth about Chomsky being overlooked because of the sound bite issue – Chomsky himself, in the film "Manufacturing Consent" explained how the appropriate political bias are constructed through clever sound bites and the repetition of rhetorical devices etc. He has appeared on CNN and other mainstream media but he generally isn't very effective as a result of the sparse time given to answering questions, so I could see him being a problem for that reason.
I don't think the mainstream media has been as 'frightened' of Chomsky as it is generally made out to be, IMO…
Btw – that's a quite heart-warming little story there, MRW…
To even have a single spokesperson for the Palestinian/Arab position, instead of a Jewish/Zionist interpreter would be a big step forward.
I don't see Arab advocates demanding equality, but a single seat at the table would be a true step forward…
And for God's sake, not Hussein Ibish!
In response to Phil's purported 'quotas' on foreign-policy discussions, I did a little research on a great mystery to me — how it is that the MSM can get away with flagrant ethnic hiring. An article by Eugene Volokh in the Jewish Law Journal offers a rationale, at least as it applies to Supreme Court clerks:
————
Of the clerks who have worked for the currently sitting justices, only 1.7% have been black and 1.2% have been Hispanic.
Ethnic groups don't distribute themselves evenly throughout the workforce. Jews, 2% of the full-time working population, make up 26% of the nation's law professors. Jews also tend to make up about 30% of the Supreme Court clerks, which means non-Jewish whites are underrepresented among the clerks compared to the population at large.
Disproportion does not prove discrimination. Civil rights law recognizes this. In discrimination cases involving skilled jobs, the racial makeup of those hired must be compared not against the general population, but against the qualified labor pool.
The sad fact is that the court faces something that candid law school admissions officers call a "pool problem." As a Jew, I'm troubled that a serious attempt at ethnic balancing would require that there be at most one Jewish clerk every year, rather than the current average of about 10. This is where the logic of seeking a clerkship cadre that "looks like America" would lead.
http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/racialpolitics.html
————
Even if one accepts Volokh's logic in relation to the rarified world of Supreme Court clerkships, the field of journalism and media casts a much wider net, and arguably SHOULD 'look like America.' But it doesn't, as anyone can observe and as Phil has detailed in the past.
The MSM's easily-proven ethnic hiring is clearly illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Why do they get away with it?
Not hard to figure out, is it? Given the close symbiosis between politics and media, no politician wants to offend the largely Jewish media management, and get tagged and ostracized as an anti-semite. So the MSM gets a free pass to keep hiring their own.
Even so, one would expect just a little bit of discretion … just a tiny vestigial sense of propriety, in at least putting up a facade of ethnic balance in discussing the I/P situation. I mean, they wouldn't assign an all-Indian team to pontificate about Pakistan, and expect anyone to accept its objectivity. But when it comes to Israel, evidently the goyim just can't be trusted not to muddy the message. So the J-team has to take over.
And the MSM wonders why their credibility sinks lower and lower, along with their stock prices. Every time another fishwrapper goes under, I cue up that old Queen hit –
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST
stevieb – I agree that a lot of the time that the things Chomsky might say would need some background details to establish how he came about a given position or viewpoint, but I remember reading something showing Chomsky could indeed answer in short, to-the-point statements. I'll see if I can find the piece. As with Dr. Norman Finkelstein, I think the fear involved is the mere questioning of the official narrative. I did an about face shortly after 9/11 with just a little bit of digging. I think many people not fed a steady diet of Zionist propaganda might wake up from their slumber as well.
~
From: Divided Legacy by Anthony Flint –
Phil wrote:
This is so true. I cannot tell you how many of my email friends from all over the country are listing as their numero uno reason for not reading newspapers for world events news or watching the alphabets for foreign affairs is because of the one-sided reporting on anything that involves Israel, which of course involves world events coverage since the Iraq War started. MSNBC has become boring because of this; I can barely watch it.
What cements the anger, however, is encountering and finally understanding and recognizing easily how hasbara groups run out of Israel like giyuz.org function on blog posts. The GIYUZ boys even tried to run Richard Silverstein off the web. 10-to-1 that org is probably run with US taxpayer dollars.
The other thing I hear are complaints about how writers and journalists have perfectly good reasons for despising what Bush and Cheney did in Iraq, then turn around and write tales straight out of Mother Goose excusing Israel for similar actions. When Avraham Burg calls Netanyahu in an interview a "right-wing extremist fundamentalist" and that doesn't get reported, you know the lock is on. The Huffington Post is now completely infected with Israel censors, and boring.
At least there is Twitter. The Israeli Consulate's attempt to influence The Twitter world the other day was the most boring and inept conversation on the web, unless you were a true believer. All the usual suspects participated: group grope/circle jerk. People in Israel were signing off complaining that the Israel Consulate was saying zip. It was not the Israel Consulate's best day, but they probably thought they were just ducky. I would say sucky.
Noam Chomsky on "Concision" in the US Media –
This one is good, we have MRW manufacturing more bar stories (NEVER happened, trust me) and SOME COCKSUCKER USING MY NAME!!!
PLEASE PHIL!!! STOP HIM!!! BAN HIM!!! SOMETHING!!!! I WANT MY IDENTITY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry if I temporarily lost my composure, but come on! The faggot is posting Queen lyrics from the 1970s! Has he no shame? Can't his IP address be isolated and blocked, at the very least?
anyway . . .
January 01, 2009
The Gaza Rules
By Victor Davis Hanson
The Israelis just struck back hard at Hamas in Gaza. In response, the United Nations, the European Union and the Arab world (at least publicly) expressed their anger at the killing of over 300 Palestinians, most of whom were terrorists and Hamas officials.
For several prior weeks, Hamas terrorists had been daily launching rockets into Israeli towns that border Gaza. The recent volleys of missiles had insidiously become more frequent — up to 80 a day — and the payloads larger. Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists were reportedly supplying their own training and expertise.
These terrorists point to the Lebanon war of 2006 as the proper template for provoking an Israeli counter-response that will bog down the Israeli Defense Forces in the streets of urban Gaza and ensure that Palestinian civilians are harmed on global television.
Watching both this week's war and the world's predictable reaction to it, we can recall the Gaza rules. Most are reflections of our postmodern age, and completely at odds with the past protocols of war.
First is the now-familiar Middle East doctrine of proportionality. Legitimate military action is strangely defined by the relative strength of the combatants. World opinion more vehemently condemns Israel's countermeasures, apparently because its rockets are far more accurate and deadly than previous Hamas barrages that are poorly targeted and thus not so lethal.
If America had accepted such rules in, say, World War II, then by late 1944 we, not the Axis, would have been the culpable party, since by then once-aggressive German, Italian and Japanese forces were increasingly on the defensive and far less lethal than the Allies.
Second, intent in this war no longer matters. Every Hamas unguided rocket is launched in hopes of hitting an Israeli home and killing men, women and children. Every guided Israeli air-launched missile is targeted at Hamas operatives, who deliberately work in the closest vicinity to women and children.
Killing Palestinian civilians is incidental to Israeli military operations and proves counterproductive to its objectives. Blowing up Israeli non-combatants is the aim of Hamas' barrages: the more children, aged and women who die, the more it expects political concessions from Tel Aviv.
By this logic, the 1999 American bombing of Belgrade — aimed at stopping the genocide of Slobodan Milosevic — was, because of collateral damage, the moral equivalent of the carefully planned Serbian massacres of Muslim civilians at Srebrenica in 1995.
Third, culpability is irrelevant. The "truce" between Israel and Hamas was broken once Hamas got its hands on new stockpiles of longer-range mobile rockets — weapons that are intended to go over Israel's border walls.
Yet, according to the Gaza rules, both sides always deserve equal blame. Indeed, this weird war mimics the politically correct, zero-tolerance policies of our public schools, where both the bully and his victim are suspended once physical violence occurs.
According to such morally equivalent reasoning, World War II was only a tragedy, not a result of German aggression. Once the dead mounted up, it mattered little what were the catalysts of the outbreak of fighting.
Fourth, with instantaneous streaming video from the impact sites in Gaza, context becomes meaningless. Our attention is glued to the violence of the last hour, not that of the last month that incited the war.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 to great expectations that the Palestinians there would combine their new autonomy, some existing infrastructure left behind by the Israelis, Middle East oil money and American pressure for free and open elections to craft a peaceful, prosperous democracy.
The world hoped that Gaza might thrive first, and then later adjudicate its ongoing disputes with Israel through diplomacy. Instead, the withdrawal was seen not as a welcome Israeli concession, but as a sign of newfound Jewish weakness — and that the intifada tactics that had liberated Gaza could be amplified into a new war to end the Zionist entity itself.
Fifth and finally, victimization is crucial. Hamas daily sends barrages into Israel, as its hooded thugs thump their chests and brag of their radical Islamic militancy. But when the payback comes, suddenly warriors are transmogrified into weeping victims, posing teary-eyed for the news camera as they deplore "genocide" and "the Palestinian Holocaust." At least the Japanese militarists did not cry out to the League of Nations for help once mean Marines landed on Iwo Jima.
By now, these Gaza asymmetrical rules are old hat. We know why they persist — worldwide fear of Islamic terrorism, easy anti-Westernism, the old anti-Semitism, and global strategic calculations about Middle East oil — but it still doesn't make them right.
Jim, log out from Phil's site and use your external Typepad or Typekey account, then Phil's webmaster won't be able to play these dirty tricks on you using the CSS scripts built into the site.