NYT fails to tell readers that Freeman’s antagonist was indicted for espionage

Felson writes:
I was actually exasperated reading the NYT story. I guess it's good that they acknowledge it was about Israel,
but Mazzetti and Cooper seem to take every opportunity to paint Freeman
as an unhinged fringe figure, without providing any context about his
"controversial" statements about Israel. Look at some of the language:

 
* "…Mr. Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush, angrily withdrew his name from consideration and charged that he had been the victim of a concerted campaign by what he called “the Israel lobby.” (as opposed to just saying "the Israel lobby" or "the pro-Israel lobby"; it's like the NYT is trying to make it look like just another kooky statement on Freeman's part)
 
* Mr. Freeman had long been critical of Israel, with a bluntness that American officials rarely voice in public about a staunch American ally." (This is AIPAC language!)
 
* "It appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steven J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,
a pro-Israel lobbying group." (Absolutely no mention of the whole
espionage thing in this sentence or anywhere in the article. Hmm,
wouldn't this be particularly relevant to mention since the article
brands Israel America's "staunch" ally?
)
 
It read more like a whitewash to me; they had to write something
after all the grief they took yesterday, but they wrote it for a
pro-Israel audience that doesn't want to read anything negative about
"our staunch ally."

[Weiss: I asked Felson what he meant about the "grief" the Times got. He responded:]
The blogs were on their case and it spread to the mainstream, via Politico. Michael Calderone wrote:
My colleague Ben Smith, who's been on top of the saga, pointed out on Tuesday night that
Freeman withdrawing showed how a story “doesn't need ever to cross into
more traditional media precincts to play out with congressional
involvement and executive action.”
 

They were challenging the NYT's relevancy, so the NYT responded– with a weak story.

Posted in Beyondoweiss, Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 37 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Me says:

    Could you imagine, a Pakistani spy writing in American newspapers (while his trial is underway) about how some politician who criticises Pakistan shouldn't get a job?

    And then a whole lot of prominent people joining in?

  2. doppler says:

    You can tell a lot by what gets left out.

    I think it is time to boycott the New York Times and Washington Post, and their advertisers. They are no longer my paper of record. Why should I reward them for being propaganda organs for policies I despise and which have been proven to be a fiasco machine?

    It appears Steve Rosen has a new PR campaign: He's not just innocent, he's a victim, and he's back. Behold the power of his blog post! Behold his ability to mold the news and the opinion of the MSM! Subtext: watch out judges, prosecutors, journalists, you could be next. It's okay if they despise you, so long as they fear you.

    Do we remain a nation of toadies and wimps?

  3. Me says:

    Forgot to add: And with only some commentators pointing out that he's probably a spy?

  4. doug says:

    Phil,

    Israel is our friend and if they spy on us it is only for our own good*. Thus it isn't relevant.

    *This is actually close to the argument made by Franklin in his sentencing plea re the transfer of classified info to Rosen.

  5. Richard Witty says:

    You can tell a lot by what gets left out here as well.

    For example, the potentially relevant criticism is that pandering to the Israel Lobby distorts information flow, politicizes it to the unnatural benefit of a single faction.

    But, the oppossite is equally true as a VALID criticism of Freeman's post. That is that in bearing a prejudicial emotional predisposition to oppose say Likud (not an irrational response), that would potentially motivate him to distort information flow, politicizing it.

    What is NEEDED in the post is an UNINVOLVED objective interpreter and conveyer of data.

    Objective, not biased the way you want, rather than the way that you oppose.

    Where is the support for his ability and character here?

    Where is Phil or Stephen Walt or Freeman's colleagues standing up for his competence, integrity, absence of conflict of interest, absence of bias.

    Where are they?

  6. Thanks Phil for another great post.

    "They were challenging the NYT's relevancy, so the NYT responded– with a weak story." The same dynamic you noted earlier with Pincus in the WP coming back today to highlight the Lobby after you clobbered him yesterday.

    The print media are finally facing their Darwinian challenge to evolve or die! (Now, how do we nurture/ monetize the bloggers?)

  7. 5 dancing shlomos says:

    wa post and nyt are part of the lobby.

  8. roy belmont says:

    Just as killing children with white phosphorus bombs is technically not killing children when it's done in the name of Israel and Zion, spying for Israel is not technically spying when it's done in the name of Israel and Zion.
    Thus Rosen is not a spy. Technically.
    Thus criticism and outrage directed at those who opposed Chas Freeman's appointment – criticism which points to the lying hypocrisy of tools of AIPAC and Israel spying on the US at the same time they're directly influencing US policy against US interests and toward the interests of Israel and Zion, and covertly shaping US political infrastructure against and toward those some interests, by clamorous denunciations of thoroughly capable men and women most of whom have more integrity in their little fingernails than their opponents will demonstrate with their whole lives – is thereby rendered ineffectual and blunt.
    Because it's not spying, it's information gathering.
    And it's not covertly shaping US political infrastructure, it's building Zion.

  9. Chris Berel says:

    Rosen is not a spy because… he is not a spy. Learn English. It helps when you make your accusations. Freeman lost his credibility because he was caught in bed with those whose interests directly compete with america's interets. Therefor, his judgement is suspect.

    You want him because you think he will act in an antisemitic manner feeding your agenda. Tough for you that he was exposed before he could act against the interests of the american people, your interest not being in tune with the rest of America..

  10. ahmed says:

    Did you see the editorial in the Los Angeles Times, I think it's the only place where Freeman's name has been mentioned in the paper.

    U.S. policy has been extremely supportive of Israel over the years, as have many of our policymakers. That's fine. But theirs should not be the only voices allowed in the room.

  11. Dan Kelly says:

    Where is Phil or Stephen Walt or Freeman's colleagues standing up for his competence, integrity, absence of conflict of interest, absence of bias.

    Where are they?

    The two people whose views I quote below have absolutely unquestionable standing to speak on this subject. One is Sidney Rittenberg, who first went to China with the US Army in 1945 and ended up spending 35 years there, 16 of them in solitary confinement for alleged espionage and disloyalty to the Mao regime. The other is Jerome A. Cohen, of NYU Law School and Paul Weiss, who has been tireless in his efforts for legal reform in China and was instrumental in freeing John Downey, who had been held in Chinese prison for two decades after the Korean War.

    Both of them strongly support the expansion of individual liberties and civil society in China. Both of them strongly support Chas Freeman and his candidacy for his now-disupted job.

    After the jump, a long email Rittenberg sent me today about Freeman. Here, comments each of them made on a private China-related discussion group, quoted with their permission. Read these and ask yourself: based at least on the China part of his background, does this sound like a man so far beyond the range of reasonable opinion that he must be prevented from holding appointive office?

    Rittenberg:

    To my knowledge–and from personal experience–Chas Freeman as DCM [Deputy Chief of Mission, #2 to the Ambassador] in Beijing was a stalwart supporter of human rights who helped many individuals in need. Not political bluster,but intelligent and courageous action. He is strong in both wisdom and integrity.

    Cohen:

    Chas Freeman is one of the most brilliant, analytical, balanced and skeptical people I have known in the last four decades. I first knew him as a young State Dept China-watcher and was so impressed I persuaded State to stake him to a year at Harvard Law School so he could finish his JD and hone his skills in international law. Chas had left HLS after two bored, ho-hum years to join the Foreign Service, but when he returned he took full advantage of the opportunity and, if memory serves, had a perfect third year record. I have not been close to him since that time but we have occasionally crossed paths and I always benefited from and enjoyed the experience.

    Chas is a keen observer, a wicked wit and a fearless critic. It is ludicrous to portray him as a "panda hugger" who endorses the slaughter of June 4 or someone who can be seduced by Saudi enticements. As far as I know, he has always been fiercely independent, and an enemy of "group think", and I will be glad to have him analyzing Israeli politics and policies as well as other problems.

    In 1973, when Chas was helping to establish the pre-Embassy U.S. "liaison office" in Beijing, a time when the Cultural Revolution led PRC officials to obscure their titles from foreigners by identifying themselves as "responsible member of the department concerned," Chas had his own name cards printed in Chinese and English bestowing the same sobriquet on himself.

    I congratulate Admiral Blair on selecting Chas to be "responsible member of the department concerned" and certainly will think less of President Obama and his advisors if they back down.

    _____

    A followup email from Sidney Rittenberg:

    if memory serves me, Chas was so effective as chief of the China Desk at State that the Reagon Administration kept him on after they replaced Jimmy Carter. I remember calling him about something the day after the elections, and he said he was in his office packing up his stuff, because he was certain to be fired promptly. But, if I remember right, he stayed over.

    Chas is an unusually deep thinker who doesn't hesitate to state his views, even when he's a minority of one. I remember talking with him at State around 1979 or '80, right after Deng Xiaoping took the helm and launched the "Reform and Opening" campaign. Virtually all critics were talking about how far China could go down the capitalist road, China's international strategy, and all the other obvious things. Chas said he thought China's future depended in large measure on how they dealt with their old legacy of Marxism. I believe that is still the case with current leaders who try to make a Marxit silk purse out of an authoritarian/capitalist sow's ear. Hu Jintao keeps trying to revive an up-dated version of Mao and a clean CPC, in a context of steamrolling capitalism and pervasive corruption. He hasn't really dealt with the issue of Marxism as official ideology. No one that I know of, except for Chas, was pointing to the importance of this 30 years ago.

    Clear-headed Chinese Marxists, in my view, hold that the only part of Marx's work that is of practical value to them is his emphasis on making a realistic, dialectical analysis of different forces in society. Also, perhaps his passionate dedication to making any future socialist state much more democratic than any capitalist one — mainly by eliminating the choke-hold of money over politics. The Communist Manifesto of 1848 clearly states that the first task of the workers after coming to power is to proclaim democracy. Marx only mentioned dictatorship a very few times in his writings, explaining it as a need for the in-coming regime during the revolution, to quash armed resistance — he never dreamed of it as the political system that could possibly be compatible with socialism. (I had lots of time to read him in the can.)

    On the decisive role of class struggle as long as classes exist, on the elimination of surplus value under socialism, on the labor theory of value, on the absolute impoverishment of the working people — on lots of things, Chinese Marxists know how mistaken he was, limited as he was to the circumstances of his times and environment. As for the "Marxism-Leninism" that Mao adopted, whenever and wherever it suited his needs — that had very little to do with the thinking of the Karl Marx who declared to French Socialists, "One thing I know — I am not a Marxist!"

    UPDATE: An email from another experienced international-affairs figure who has ask that I not use his name. This is in response to my earlier argument that Freeman's "contrarian" nature would actually be a plus in his prospective next job.

    I have known him since 1995 and feel that the criticism of him has been extreme and ill informed. To be honest, it has come to resemble (irony notwithstanding) the Dreyfus Affair.

    In any event, I would differ somewhat with the contrarian label. He is an independent thinker but I would say "irreverent" applies better than "contrarian." The latter implies a certain systematic element of iconoclasm, which Chas, in my opinion, doesn't have. He's been quite happy to support the conventional wisdom when it makes good sense.

    Chas Freeman and China

  12. Although I appreciate that most posters to (and the owners of) this site are Palestinian sympathizers and don't like Israel, I still don't fathom why support of the Palestinians is in the US geopolitical interest.

    To turn the critique on its head, what are the motives of the "Palestinianist Lobby"? Why Palestine and not Tibet or Kurdistan? Do we somehow act for the interests of the American people by siding with suicide bombers, Jihadis, misogynists and homophobes? Will our oil be completely cut off if we don't mouth support for the Palestinian cause? What exactly is a "Palestinian" and how does he/she differ from a Jordanian, an Egyptian, a Lebanese or a Syrian in culture, language, ethnic background and religion? Who benefits from a continuing reliance on oil? Is it an "Israel Lobby" position only that reliance on foreign oil is a security risk and a cause of global warming? Does moving to alternative means of energy only benefit Israel and not the US?

    What, exactly, are the benefits of the US improving "Palestinian" society? Do we expect that, like Israel, we in the United States will be provided with new technology, new medical research and cures, etc., that are the fruit of Israeli brain power? Are we currently getting any new technology from Jordan, Egypt, Syria or Saudi Arabia that benefits people in the United States? What would be the cost to the US of losing Israel (or Great Britain or France for that matter) to yet another Islamic theocracy?

  13. Dan Kelly says:

    Last week, 17 former U.S. ambassadors – including former ambassador to the U.N. Thomas Pickering and former ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis – wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal praising Freeman as "a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence estimates."

    Chas Freeman Is a Great Choice

    A number of statements have appeared objecting to the appointment of Ambassador Charles "Chas" Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council based on his political views ("Obama's Intelligence Choice," by Gabriel Schoenfeld, op-ed, Feb. 25). We, the undersigned former U.S. ambassadors, have known Chas Freeman for many years during his service to the nation in war and peace and in some of our most difficult posts. We recognize that Chas has controversial political views, not all of which we share. Many individuals with strong and well-known views have, and are being asked, to serve in positions of high responsibility.

    The free exchange of political views is one of the strengths of our nation. We know Chas to be a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments. We categorically reject the implication that the holding of personal opinions with which some disagree should be a reason to deny to the nation the service of this extremely qualified individual. We commend President Obama and Admiral Dennis C. Blair for appointing Ambassador Freeman to such an important position.

    Thomas R. Pickering
    Ronald E. Neumann
    Samuel W. Lewis
    Washington

    Fourteen other ambassadors signed this letter.

    Chas Freeman is a Great Choice

  14. Dan Kelly says:

    On Tuesday, seven former senior intelligence officials wrote to Blair in support of Freeman. They called the attacks on him "unprecedented in their vehemence, scope, and target" and perpetrated by "pundits and public figures… [who are] aghast at the appointment of a senior intelligence official able to take a more balanced view of the Arab-Israel issue".

    Freeman Withdrawal Marks Victory For Israel Lobby

  15. Dan Kelly says:

    “I would trust that Mr. Freeman would exhibit integrity in addressing issues on the Middle East,” said former NIC official Paul Pillar. A foreign affairs professional “can do his job in the best and most objective way he thinks is possible and isn't necessarily going to be working one policy slant vs. another policy slant.”

    Why He Matters

  16. So – why did he withdraw? He could have faced congressional questioning and told Congress how he strongly feels that it is being controlled by a secretive Jewish cabal and that since he smart and objective he, and only he, will be able to oppose the Jewish cabal. Then, he could have been rescued by the clear majority of US citizens who believe that every facet of their lives is being controlled by a secretive Jewish cabal. And which secretive Jewish cabal, thank heavens, is being exposed by the anti-Jewish-secretive-cabal Mondoweiss blog.

  17. Me says:

    @Dan Kelly:

    Thank you sir for these links. I didn't know of these supporters of Freeman.

  18. citizen says:

    RE: "Tough for you that he was exposed before he could act against the interests of the american people, your interest not being in tune with the rest of America.."

    So this comment poster tells us the 17 plus former and extent official USA diplomats who posted pubic support for Freeman are not American? The man who nominated him is not loyal to America also? MY,my, my. And the media folk who came out in support of Freeman are not loyal to the USA also?

    Who thinks this comment poster (CB et Stools) is an American in his heart?

  19. cha says:

    Sadly,we have to remember that although we're talking about this, as Ahmed pointed out above the LA Times didn't even cover this story.

  20. LeaNder says:

    But, the oppossite is equally true as a VALID criticism of Freeman's post. That is that in bearing a prejudicial emotional predisposition to oppose say Likud (not an irrational response), that would potentially motivate him to distort information flow, politicizing it.

    Can you give any evidence that surfaced from this smear campaign that shows VALID proof he is emotionally predisposed against anything.

    Interesting you mention Likud in this context. It never surfaced anywhere as far as I know.

    This is all what smear-campaigns are about. The majority thinks: were there is smoke there must be fire.

    There is something eminently wrong with your display of balance.

  21. LeaNder says:

    Although I appreciate that most posters to (and the owners of) this site are Palestinian sympathizers and don't like Israel, I still don't fathom why support of the Palestinians is in the US geopolitical interest.

    one either has: empathy for Palestinians or one likes Israel.
    in other words: if one likes Israel one automatically dislikes Palestinians.

    On a higher level every human being that sympathizes with the Palestinian people must be a secret antisemite. Or if somebody likes the Israelis, he dislikes Palestinians and Arabs generally.

    What a wonderful simplistic world view.

    There is something very, very wrong with the Jewish mind.

  22. Quite interesting links. I wouldn't think that the president of pro-Israel AIPAC would make a good choice for the head of the National Intelligence Commission. But neither would Chas Freeman, the president of the anti-Israel Middle East Policy Council (financed in large part by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia). No ideologue is appropriate for such a position.

    Freeman's anti-Israel views are that Israel, and Israel alone, is the source of the hatred directed towards it and towards the United States, including the hatred that caused 9/11. Regarding China's crack-down on the Tienamen Square protesters, he said "I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government.”

    Freeman could have discussed these (and other unique) views with Congress. He chose to withdraw instead and blame his withdrawal on the secretive "Jewish Lobby" cabal that is controlling American with radio waves and tin-foil receiver hats.

  23. Dan Kelly says:

    Thank you sir for these links. I didn't know of these supporters of Freeman.

    Me,

    Glad to provide them. It's important that relevant information gets as widely dispersed as possible. Obviously, we can't depend on the mainstream media to do it.

    We can take the word of over 25 former intelligence officials, ambassadors, and men who have worked "in the field" with Freeman, who himself has worked in National Security for over 30 years as a foreign diplomat. (He speaks Chinese, French, Spanish, Taiwanese, Portuguese, Italian, and is working on his Arabic).

    Or, we can listen to a few staunch ideologues who have no experience in this realm and whose sole raison d'etre is advocacy on behalf of Israel.

    Evidently, a few of the posters here would rather do the latter. Fortunately, they have no power.

    Unfortunately, the people who do hold power, the Schumers, Emanuels, Feisnteins, Liebermans, etc. (and the far wealthier and more powerful men who finance their careers) are in the same camp as the ideologues.

  24. Me says:

    "Chinese, French, Spanish, Taiwanese, Portuguese, Italian, and is working on his Arabic"

    There you have it. Must be an dirrty anti-Semite. Why doesn't he speak Hebrew? He is singling out Israel here becaust of its language he doesn't speak. What a bigot.

    :-)

  25. roy belmont says:

    Rosen is accused of espionage, passing state secrets to agents of a foreign government.
    But Rosen cannot be a spy, because he's a Zionist, since the universal moral metric is an exclusive property of Zionists – ipso facto nothing Zionists do is wrong.
    Cabal canard canard cabal cabal canard cabal.
    English, wit riddim. And some Latin.
    More English:
    Chas Freeman is a hero.
    There are no Zionist heroes.

  26. David says:

    Harcourt Fenton:

    "So – why did he withdraw? He could have faced congressional questioning and told Congress how he strongly feels that it is being controlled by a secretive Jewish cabal "

    1. Educate yourself just a tiny bit before spouting off. This was a non-comfirmed position, meaning there were to be no Congressional hearings. This is not coincidental, as there was no chance for someone like him to survive the AIPAC lobby in Congress.

    2. Why support the Palestinians? How about because we're human beings who hate the sight of human beings sufference from violence, malnutrition, isolation, fear, etc.? Does it have to be in our "interests" to be concerned about human suffering? Particularly when their suffering is directly related to the actions of our own government.

    In any event, it probably is in our interest to be seen as a neutral broker in the Middle East because we might actually succeed in bringing about peace that way which would:

    a. reduce the raison d'etre of much of the Islamic/Arab terrorism in the world (or do you believe that they hate us for our "freedoms?) and -

    b. contribute to the stabilization of our supply of energy into the future, something that is coming under increasing doubt.

  27. David says:

    The most interesting thing about this episode may be what it says about the state of journalism. That a major political story involving a public campaign played out on Congress, in the Executive and on the Internet, with nary a mention from the MSM, says a lot about the irrelevance of the MSM. Why read the paper or watch the news if they are not going to tell you what's going on?

  28. Harry Fenton says:

    David – Do you agree with Dan Kelly's statement: "Unfortunately, the people who do hold power, the Schumers, Emanuels, Feisnteins, Liebermans, etc. (and the far wealthier and more powerful men who finance their careers) are in the same camp as the ideologues."

    Do you agree with Al Jazeerah's headline: "Freeman Withdraws as Head of National Intelligence Council Under Pressure from Israel-Firsters Who Control US Government".

    As for the "raison d'etre" – Israel's existence is not the "root cause" of Islamic terroism. The hatred of Jews in Islamic countries and the willingness of Islamofacists to use suicide bombing and terrorism to influence the debate is the "root cause" of Islamic terroism. Jews and the US support of Israel, however, have nothing to do with the murder/bombings by Islamofacists in Iraq or in India. No Jews there to speak of. Maybe it's something in the water. I doubt it's because they don't like our "freedoms"; but it may be because they don't like that we built and influenced great control over their oil industry – which is the only productive thing they have given the world recently. Maybe they hate us because we allow our women to jog around in running clothes and don't force them to wear a burka. And why would anyone in Saudi Arabia or the oil producing world want to "stabilize our energy supply"? Oil will be extinct in a century – do we need to kowtow to those who don't let their women drive just so we can let ours drive gas guzzlers?

    No one wants to see people suffering. Least of all the Israelis. They don't hand out candy and sing when an Israeli bomb kills civilians. They are fighting for their lives, David. Presumably, you are not. The sole source of their suffering is their willingness to kill innocent Israelis. When that stops, then Israel won't have to defend itself. To say that Israel hasn't been trying to resolve the situation is poppycock – you have bought heavily into left-wing neo-facist propaganda if you think Israel's goal is to kill all Arabs.

  29. D. says:

    "They don't hand out candy and sing when an Israeli bomb kills civilians."

    You're fooling yourself, or trying to fool us. These Israelis do–
    Never Forget Never Forgive

  30. D. says:

    (BTW, love your nickname. It makes you sound so goyische.)

  31. roy belmont says:

    Harry Fenton:
    The hatred of Jews in Islamic countries and the willingness of Islamofacists to use suicide bombing and terrorism to influence the debate is the "root cause" of Islamic terroism.
    That's a tautology. It says that the root cause of terrorism is the willingness of terrorists to be terrorists.
    And it ignores what's just about almost common knowledge, that the anti-Semitism of the Arab world, where it exists, is a reaction, not a cause.
    Israel's goal isn't to "kill all Arabs" obviously, and most conscious leftists know that. But it looks very much like the goal is to make them go away, make them afraid, make them submit. It is a heartless and selfish disdain that kills as easily as it ignores the suffering it causes. The goal is aggrandizement, power, empire. And God help anyone who gets in the way.
    Sociopathic inhumanity. The difference between sadism and cruel disregard of the other.
    No one wants to see people suffering.
    The sole source of their suffering is their willingness to kill innocent Israelis.
    That doesn't scan. It's a black and white contradiction. If you can bring yourself to confront that it may help you get clearer about what you feel and why you feel it.
    You don't want Israelis demonized, but then you demonize in turn.
    Using a word like "Islamofascists" to describe people who are clearly "fighting for their lives", and clearly are losing their lives in far greater number than the people who are killing them, who are causing them immense suffering, and who are gloating about doing it.
    -
    I'd add to David's "says a lot about the irrelevance of the MSM" that it confirms the accusation that the MSM is as controlled as the Congress, probably by the same methods, by a force which does not have the well-being of US citizens as an interest, which makes it more unsettling than mere irrelevance.

  32. Dan Kelly says:

    Great points, roy belmont. Thank you.

  33. Dan Kelly says:

    They are fighting for their lives, David.

    The country with the 4th largest military in the world, a military machine that some experts say may be more advanced than America's, with 200-300 nuclear weapons at its disposal, is "fighting for its life" against a defenseless population forced to string together some homemade bottle rockets in order to mount at least a symbolic resistance.

    Does anyone take this seriously?

  34. Chris Berel says:

    There is something very, very wrong with the Jewish mind.

    Posted by: LeaNder | March 12, 2009 at 05:48 PM

    Is there any more doubt about LeaNders credentials as an antisemite?

  35. D. says:

    Hahah, now our good LeaNder is an "antisemite"!

    You see what happens when you allow phony concepts like "antisemitism" to go unchallenged, LeaNder?

  36. tommy says:

    we're human beings who hate the sight of human beings sufference from violence, malnutrition, isolation, fear, etc.

    Well written.

    Horrible sights of suffering shows the viewer how detestable the treatment of Palestinians is, as well as the European Jews in WW II, but some do not have the insight to be repulsed by the violence used against all peoples.

  37. Golda Meara says:

    I hate that arabs, especially palestinian ones, make me kill their babies, kids, mothers with my mighty weapons my diaspora brethren bribed off the hillbilly USA congress at the expense of the growing
    homeless in America.