A recent assignment of mine covering Israel’s presumed links to the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh provoked some more thoughts about the New York Times reporter Ethan Bronner. He is the Jerusalem bureau chief who has been at the centre of a controversy since it was revealed last month that his son is serving in the Israeli army. Despite mounting pressure to replace Bronner, the NYT’s editors have so far refused to consider that he might be facing a conflict of interest or that it would be wiser to post him elsewhere.
Last week, when suspicion for the assassination in Dubai started to fall on the Mossad, a newspaper editor emailed to ask if I could ring up my “Israeli security contacts” for fresh leads. It was a reminder that Western correspondents in Israel are expected to have such contacts. The point was underlined later the same day when I spoke with a leftwing Israeli academic to get his take on Mabhouh’s killing. I had turned to this Ashkenazi professor because he counts many veterans of the security services as friends. At the end of the interview, I asked him if he had any suggestions for people in the security services I might speak with. He replied: “Talk to Eitan Bronner. He has excellent contacts.” Naively, I asked how I could reach this expert on the veiled world of the Israeli security establishment. Was he employed at the professor’s university? “No, ring the New York Times bureau,” he responded increduously. Oh, that “Eitan”!
A more interesting question than whether Bronner is now facing a conflict of interest over his son serving in the Israeli army is whether the NYT reporter was facing such a conflict long before the latest revelations surfaced. Could it be that it is actually incumbent on Bronner, as the NYT’s bureau chief, to have such a conflict of interest?
Consider this. The NYT has form when it comes to turning a blind eye to reporters with conflicts of interest in Israel — aside, I mean, from the issue of the reporters’ ethnic identification or nationality. For example, I am reminded of a recent predecessor of Bronner’s at the Jerusalem bureau — an Israeli Jew — who managed to do regular service in the Israeli army reserves even while he was covering the second intifada. I am pretty sure his bosses knew of this but, as with Bronner, did not think there were grounds for taking action.
Shortly after I wrote an earlier piece on Bronner, pointing out that most Western coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict is shaped by Jewish and Israeli journalists, and that Palestinian voices are almost entirely excluded, a Jerusalem-based bureau chief asked to meet. Over a coffee he congratulated me, adding: “I’d be fired if I wrote something like that.”
This reporter, who, unlike me, spends lots of time with the main press corps in Jerusalem, then made some interesting points. He wishes to remain anonymous but has agreed to my passing on his observations. He calls Bronner’s situation “the rule, not the exception”, adding: “I can think of a dozen foreign bureau chiefs, responsible for covering both Israel and the Palestinians, who have served in the Israeli army, and another dozen who like Bronner have kids in the Israeli army.”
He added that it is very common to hear Western reporters boasting to one another about their “Zionist” credentials, their service in the Israeli army or the loyal service of their children. “Comments like that are very common at Foreign Press Association gatherings [in Israel] among the senior, agenda-setting, elite journalists.”
My informant is highly critical of what is going on among the Jerusalem press corps, even though he admits the same charges could be levelled against him. “I’m Jewish, married to an Israeli and like almost all Western journalists live in Jewish West Jerusalem. In my free time I hang out in cafes and bars with Jewish Israelis chatting in Hebrew. For the Jewish sabbath and Jewish holidays I often get together with a bunch of Western journalists. While it would be convenient to think otherwise, there is no question that this deep personal integration into Israeli society informs our overall understanding and coverage of the place in a way quite different from a journalist who lived in Ramallah or Gaza and whose personal life was more embedded in Palestinian society.”
And now he gets to the crunch: “The degree to which Bronner’s personal life, like that of most lead journalists here, is integrated into Israeli society, makes him an excellent candidate to cover Israeli political life, cultural shifts and intellectual life. The problem is that Bronner is also expected to be his paper’s lead voice on Palestinian political life, cultural shifts and intellectual life, all in a society he has almost no connection to, deep knowledge of or even the ability to directly communicate with … The presumption that this is possible is neither fair to Bronner nor to his readers, and it’s really a shame that Western media executives don’t see the value in an Arabic-speaking bureau chief living in Ramallah and setting the agenda for the news coming out of the Palestinian territories.”
All true. But I think there is a deeper lesson from the Bronner affair. Editors who prefer to appoint Jews and Israelis to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are probably making a rational choice in news terms — even if they would never dare admit their reasoning. The media assign someone to the Jerusalem bureau because they want as much access as possible to the inner sanctums of power in a self-declared Jewish state. They believe – and they are right – that doors open if their reporter is a Jew, or better still an Israeli Jew, who has proved his or her commitment to Israel by marrying an Israeli, by serving in the army or having a child in the army, and by speaking fluent Hebrew, a language all but useless outside this small state.
Yes, Ethan Bronner is “the rule”, as my informant notes, because any other kind of journalist — the goyim, as many Israelis dismiss non-Jews — will only ever be able to scratch at the surface of Israel’s military-political-industrial edifice. The Bronners have access to power, they can talk to the officials who matter, because those same officials trust that high-powered Jewish and Israeli reporters belong in the Israeli consensus. They may be critical of the occupation, but they can be trusted to pull their punches. If they ever failed to do so, they would be ejected from the inner sanctum and a paper like the NYT would be forced to replace them with someone more cooperative.
When in later years, these Jerusalem bureau chiefs retire from the field of battle and are promoted to the rank of armchair general back at media HQ – when they become a Thomas Friedman paid to pontificate regularly on the conflict — they can be trusted to talk to those same high-placed officials, explaining their viewpoint and defending it. That is why you will not read anything in the NYT questioning the idea that Israel is a democratic state or see coverage suggesting that Israel is acting in bad faith in the peace process.
I do not want here to suggest there is anything unique about this relationship of almost utter dependence. To a degree, this is how most specialists in the mainstream media operate. Think of the local crime reporter. How effective would he be (and it is invariably a he) if he alienated the senior police officers who provide the inside information he needs for his regular supply of stories? Might he not prefer to turn a blind eye to a scoop revealing that one of his main informants is taking bribes, if publishing such a story would lose him his “access” and his posting? This is a simple cost-benefit analysis made both by the reporter and the editors who assign him that almost always favours the powerful over the weak, the interests of the journalist over the reader.
And so it is with Israel. Like the crime reporter, our Jerusalem bureau chief needs his “access” more than he needs the occasional scoop that would sabotage his relationship with official sources. But more so than the crime reporter, many of these bureau chiefs also identify with Israel and its goals because they have an Israeli spouse and children. They not only live on one side of a bitter national conflict but actively participate in defending that side through service in its military.
This is a conflict of interest of the highest order. It is also the reason why they are there in the first place.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
Excellent post and a reminder that all talk of media reform is a waste of time and breath. Bias is built into the system. The media is how the elites communicate with the masses. In the long run, media which goes against power will go out of business, and the long run may be quite brief. Accept it. Deal with it.
Keith: Accept it. Deal with it.
And never stop criticising it and shouting bloody murder when the mask falls off and it flagrantly violates its own declared principles. Bronner may be par for the course, but that doesn’t mean we have to shut up, or that the furor raised by his very blatant conflict of interest hasn’t made the NYT uncomfortable, forcing it to expose the issue to its readers – an accomplishment even if Bronner doesn’t get transferred to Beijing.
Shmuel, hear, hear.
OT question. You mentioned that one set of grandparents emigrated to Canada from Poland before WWII hit, because your grandfather had a useful trade (or some term like that) and a sponsor. Do you know if Canada dictated where he had to move to, or was he given freedom to decide? Do you know if or when that ability to emigrate from Poland stopped?
MRW: OT question (9:49 am)
I know that Jews allowed to enter Canada as farmers had to settle out west, but my grandfather had an “urban” trade – he was a furrier (trained and apprenticed in Warsaw) – and was sponsored by another furrier (his brother-in-law) already established in Montreal, who had specifically requested his services. He and my grandmother thus landed at Halifax and immediately proceeded to Montreal. That was in 1936. I don’t know how long the policy went on, but Canada entered the war in 1939 (which must have changed both policy and the flow of immigrants), and accepted a large number of Jewish refugees after the war, without any such conditions – as well as many Hungarian Jews after 1956 and Moroccan Jews after ’67. My grandfather tried to get his mother and brothers and their families out of Poland, but all communication stopped after September 1939.
Another category of European Jews who came to Canada were young Austrian men at the early stages of WWII, whose claims of Jewishness Great Britain did not automatically accept, and who were thus sent on to Canada. Immigrant status at that age in Canada at that time likely encouraged many to go to college when they might not have otherwise done so.
Keith, it’s a lot simpler that you make it out to be! Israel has discovered that reporters get their facts the rightest when they offer hostages to the Israelis.
I read this article earlier today but it is fantastic to see it posted here by you, Mr. Cook. You are a great reporter. Please post here more.
The iPad is going to change that. The NYT fails to recognize this at its peril. Mark my words, in four years, the NYT will be scrambling to create what it has neglected to do so far. Dont bother reminding me that the NYT has made a deal to be on the iPad, big whoop, I know that. I am actually referring to the Millennials worldwide (the largest population group ever) who are not going to to accept Baby Boomer logic in disseminating news to them. It will be “Fuck you, BBs. Look what you’ve done to the world so far. You can’t be trusted.”
The moment the iBook creator comes out and far more sophisticated yet simpler ways of presenting video are available in the cloud — which means BRIC, Africa, and far-off places involvement — the landscape is going to change, fast. The NYT will still exist as a coffin-chronicler of cherished old Upper Westside and 1950-style Bronx views on Zionism (yawn) and cover the fashion shows and let David Pogue do his cutesy vids on new gadgets and do food and architectural reviews, and function as a press desk for DC every Sunday. Uh-hunh. But that is no longer the world. Although the US wont allow it grade school students to learn two or more languages (the consequence of the Double-Digit IQs of the brilliant, insightful, global thinking of the anti-immigration crowd), students in the rest of the world are learning English. With cloud computing in their hands and cheap cameras, they will be able to garner as much editorial clout as the NYT ever had in its heyday.
My post was in reply to Keith. dalybean cut in line. ;-)
;)
I am with you Syntopia-wise, but not quite on either the utopian or the dystopian end of the pole.
“Although the US wont allow it grade school students to learn two or more languages (the consequence of the Double-Digit IQs of the brilliant, insightful, global thinking of the anti-immigration crowd), students in the rest of the world are learning English.”
I’m not sure what you mean, MRW. The system of public education in the United States isn’t driven by monoculturalists and traditionalists. I don’t know which countries you mean when you mention the rest of the world, but I do know for a fact that in many nations, GPA and testing determines which high school a student attends, and whether or not he will take the academic track that leads to proficiency in other languages.
The problem I see in public education where I live is that we try to push every child through the academic track, with mixed-ability classrooms that hold everyone back. Few kids arrive in college prepared –and leave the same way– and most mid to lower level colleges serve no real purpose, except making money.
I am an anti-immigrationist, and I have no problem with American children being well educated. An anti-immigrationist would rather see strong vocational programs for those students whose strengths would point them in that direction, and an academic track that challenges the students with academic interests. The system is failing because we have the population numbers that would make imported brains, brawn and skills a non-issue. I just don’t think that anti-immigrationists and traditionalists are producing the mall rats or know-nothings who make up the service economy or work in government and media.
“anti-immigrationists and traditionalists”
I would hope, suh, that you is referring to our Gawd-given Christian traditions! Yes suh, them there Christian traditions what came to this country with its founderers, and not that Socialist, intellectualist, Darwinist, innovationist, new-fangled stuff (like “civil rights”) that all those elite Jews brought us!
However, I must admit I admire you for never having an abortion, it being murder and all that, you know, traditionally.
Another great response! If you have a problem with Christians, take it up with a Christian, or at least someone who is even commenting on Christians..
Well, well, well, an American traditionalist who ain’t a Christian? Gosh awlmighty, I’ve lived to see everything.
But if there is one thing all American traditionalists can agree on, it’s the inferiority of the kids at the mall and the workers in service industries!
I guess your point is that public education in the U.S. isn’t a failure? Otherwise, you haven’t really made a point with your posts, other than being the usual bigoted anti-bigot.
Very well said! And with decreasing circulation and falling revenues, it is even more unlikely that even large papers like the NYT will ever think of having a West Bank bureau too.
Insightful article:
“Bronner is also expected to be his paper’s lead voice on Palestinian political life”
-I wonder how many Palestinians contacts he has on a monthly basis? This would reveal the level of interest in forging peace by way of New York Times.
The only problem with you analogy is that local crime reporter is too fair of a description. The journalist seems more like a mafia insider, with a selective memory at best.
I agree with Chu. The more proper analogy is to the Mafia insider, not to the local police chief in the USA. Otherwise, great article by the intrepid Jonathan Cook. I bet there’s proportionately more volunteer Jewish American sons in the IDF than in the volunteer US Army enlisted ranks. And ditto as to US congress people’s and state or local government people’s sons. 48% of all US military grunts come from rural areas of the USA. The US elites don’t literally fight for the USA; if they literally fight at all, it appears to be they fight in the IDF, or their sons do. I’m sure Mossad knows the truth. Deep Throat. Blow job.
Well, the Mafia insider brings out the illegal nature of the scenario, but the police chief side brings out the supposedly legal, or “respected” status quo nature of the scenario. However, both can be seen actually in the police chief analogy, and apparently we understand what the sentiments of some are that would not like that analogy. Let me say with all candor, the underworld does not hold a candle to the atrocities of the over-world. It can be summed up that a thief might steal something that belongs to a person, but these “institutions” that are so respected, steal peoples lives. If you have not looked beneath the surface to find this out, and really ferreted out the facts of what takes place in the “acceptable” world, you are indeed short sighted.
OCCUPIED
Or maybe I should communicate it with a banned video. Now, you may not like the character singing, but try to look beyond that to the truth –
CARE
I don’t disagree with you VR–the whole “system” and its instituions are not the cathedrals they preen themselves to be. A major problem remains our journalists who’s job it is to keep us igorant of so many core things wrong with “the system.”
So called “major media” is nothing but the siren call of the status quo, and there is a reason why such glaring inconsistencies are allowed like this and actually promoted – that is because the media of this nature is the handmaiden of the same “system” we put in parenthesis. The media is the systems face.
Robert Fisk can go and visit Gaza and the West Bank and report on his findings. By contrast, Bronner sits in Jerusalem with access to government officials, yet remains incapable of reporting the facts that Mr. Fisk had relayed.
In other words, “access” to politicians or government officials rarely provides any insider information that is unknown to the reporter on the scene. Even so, how is it that Seymour Hersh can maintain his Pentagon contacts, but continue to remain objective (Relatively speaking. There are no absolutes when it comes to truth) without compromising his journalistic integrity?
“Access” seems to be of value in a society (or a demographic) where government propaganda is valued more and trusted more than eyewitness testimony or first hand accounts. Government officials already have a platform from which they promulgate their “news” and the insider information they usually provide is intended to mislead.
If I wanted to know what is going on in the mountains of Waziristan, I wouldn’t look to NATO or US generals for information.
Instead, I would travel there with a local translator/guide and report my findings. Better yet, I would set up shop at nearby Peshawar and file my reports after venturing out and seeing for myself what is happening and speaking with the people on the ground and recording their experiences.
Unlike legal or police work where either forensics or developments in a case warrant “access” to an insider in the District Attorney’s office or the police chief’s office, when it comes to politics, such access is almost guaranteed to provide nothing but deceptions and propaganda.
And finally, what benefit has Bronner’s so-called access been? What have we, the readers, benefited from such access? Have we learned new facts or truths that are otherwise unavailable to other journalists? No. Could we have browsed the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ website and found the same “information” Bronner includes in his articles? Yes.
Personally, I see “access” as being no different from “mouthpiece”. If Bronner’s “access” were of any value to the public, then he would have already told us when or if Israel were going to attack Lebanon or Gaza (again).
In other words, “journalists” who boast of having “access”, are using a pretty euphemism with which to cloak their intellectually lazy or politically/ideologically biased personality. That’s Ethan Bronner in a nutshell.
I would like to see Bronner’s weekly log book. While Keller can defend Bronner, your point about Fisk trumps the argument, what is Bronner really up to?
Ok, assume he’s objective and fairly reports the situation to the subscribers of the newspaper. And let’s say he is in the office for the majority of the week. As a bureau chief, that is completely understandable given the risks involved. But the remaining question is who does he send out in the field to get the other side of the conflict?
Much of Keller’s response in his recent defense of keeping Bronner were unsupported points, and was soft on actual facts of what Bronner does to be objective. Again, it seems the times have an objectivity issue, but Keller is scared to admit it, for fear making waves with the establishment.
It’ s all the satus quo–Jews are helpless victims like
ANNE FRank. Palestinians are ALL rabid ANTI-SEMITES.
Are not all the US’s israel/pal negotiateing team jewish?????????
I think I read somewhere recently that they are. Wonder if Obama or his negotiating team ever read this clear article laying out what Obama should condition any peace plan on:
link to middleeast.about.com
Here’s an article written when Obama was not yet President that discusses and illustrates just how hard it is for an American President to actually help the Palestinians in any significant way–it begins when JFK was just starting out on his way to the White House–how things have changed and yet remained the same–
seems the internet is the main hope–along with Al J Eng TV, if it ever really gets a foot in the door:
link to buchanan.org
If you people want to see what organised jewry is in the USA today…go watch MacGyver S5..Ep 10% solution
092 THE TEN PERCENT SOLUTION
Airdate: 20 November 1989
Writer: Tom & Sally Drake
Director: Michael Preece
Guest Cast: Nehemiah Persoff as Sam, Barbara Stock as Laura, Gretchen Wyler as Madame Brandenburg, Garry Chalk as Sergeant Gray, John Novak as Lyle Hoggart.
After a Holocaust survivor disrupts an art auction, MacGyver investigates his claims and uncovers a massive neo-Nazi movement within the American political system .
A massive neo-nazi…..how about massive neo – zionist…..
Just read Huffpost…ginserg blowing bs about Iran and syria…….every reply I read pretty much told this zio-con to take his propaganda and stick it…..
“The Bronners have access to power, they can talk to the officials who matter, because those same officials trust that high-powered Jewish and Israeli reporters belong in the Israeli consensus.”
I believe the NYT also has reporters in Washington. Ask Helen Thomas how challenging they are to our more local center of power.
And consult the list of hasbara authors in service of Israel mentioned in a Weiss post earlier this week. Bronner has been on that list since (as I recall) 2004. That list, including luminaries like Dershowitz, is a Good Ol’ Boys [and Girls?] Club of people who cannot stay in the club if they begin to utter heterodox opinion. To be a member (and, of course, to desire to stay a member) means for sure hewing to the Party Line. People whose “rice bowl” depends on making nice with power and staying in The Club don’t dare want their rice bowl broken just to tell a little bit of cultural-pluralism-truth, or even just The Truth when it happens to be both clear and inconvenient.
Quid pro quo, Clarice … quid pro quo
Now, substitute israel for Hannibal Lecter and any U.S. journalist for Clarice and you begin to see it …. Do you see it?
“The Bronners have access to power, they can talk to the officials who matter, because those same officials trust that high-powered Jewish and Israeli reporters belong in the Israeli consensus. They may be critical of the occupation, but they can be trusted to pull their punches. If they ever failed to do so, they would be ejected from the inner sanctum and a paper like the NYT would be forced to replace them with someone more cooperative.”
You tell the story israel’s way or you’re out, period.
If there were the slightest interest in providing balance to the stories NYTimes and other news agencies produce, they could assign a second bureau chief to Gaza or some other Palestinian territory and make all articles with both bylines and an equal amount of content from each reporter, and that reporter in the Palestinian territories could be Muslim or a non-jew
I think Jonathan Cook did a fantastic job here, and Mr. Cook needs to be commended for posting this for us. I have been reading Mr. Cook’s articles for years, he is a really rare treasure, and cuts right to the truth – and he does it so well.
Indeed. I have been reading Mr. Cook’s articles for years now. His analysis is always insightful.
By the way, if you haven’t read his book Disappearing Palestine, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy.
I agree, Cook is a treasure.
Harvard University has seen controversy (ignored by American press) over Weatherhead Institute Fellow Martin Kramer, who endorses measures to suppress the Palestinian birthrate — a not very concealed call for crimes against humanity and a call that has been heard in the past from the likes of Avigdor Lieberman, Ariel Sharon and Rehavam Ze’evi.
Harvard and most leading American universities have a great many unabashed supporters of whatever war crime Israel dreams up.
The parallel with Ethan Bronner lies in the strange evolution over the past 30 or 40 years.
In the early 60s, Noam Chomsky was a fellow at Harvard. He left for a faculty position at MIT knowing that Harvard didn’t grant tenure to Jews. Today, the problem is faced, not by Jews, but by Arabs or by any person who vocally criticizes Israel or supports Palestinians. Witness the cases of Juan Cole (denied a post at Yale), of Joseph Massad (nearly denied at Columbia), of Norman Finkelstein (denied tenure at DePaul) and many others.
Likewise, Jews faced serious hurdles 40 or 50 years ago in the American media. The issue then was that, if you were Jewish, you were deemed unqualified or assumed to be biased by nature for reporting in the Middle East.
Now, Arabs face silent, overwhelming hostility in the American press. There are no Arabs or Muslims in leadership positions of any kind in the major American media. The New York Times is the most glaring case, but CNN, NPR, the Washington Post, etc., are no different. Most important, were any Arab or Muslim to proposed for a major post in the Middle East — most especially Jerusalem bureau chief — the uproar from the Israel lobby would be deafening.
Unlike the circumstances of Jews in the 50s, 60s and 70s, conditions in the US are getting much worse for Arabs and Muslims. The US government stops just short of officially sanctioning anti-Arab discrimination. The US Congress, US courts and US media and academia are thick with people who show no evidence of any shame whatsoever in voicing the most vicious, anti-Arab hate-speech.
Very true. Look at how closely our government monitors and moves against Arab American NGOs; contrast this with how our government completely ignores Jewish American NGOs funding illegal settlements in Palestine.
Will the next census take be used against arab Americans?
In the months after 9/11, the American Jewish Committee conducted a study to — supposedly — find out the exact number of Muslim Americans in the US. After their findings were published, every mainstream organization started using the their data on Muslim Americans.
But, the data is questionable. Information from various sources dating back the late 1990s shows that there were more Muslim Americans than the numbers published by AJC om late 2001.
Muslim organizations claim that there are between 5 to 7 million in the US, while the AJC (and therefore the mainstream media) claim that there are merely 2 million.
This article claims 3.5 million Arab Americans, and discusses their voting pattern
and where most of them live:
link to middleeast.about.com
“There are no Arabs or Muslims in leadership positions of any kind in the major American media.”
Don’t Zakaria, Velshi and Amanpour count?
“There are no Arabs or Muslims in leadership positions of any kind in the major American media.”
Zakaria is an Indian, Velshi is of Indian heritage and Amanpour is of Iranian heritage.
And they do not appear to be practicing Muslims, nor does Islam seem to be a major part of their identity. Do you think the average American sees them as Muslims?
They represent the average educated Muslim. Whether its India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa or the US
Perhaps the idea of Muslims as an anachronism is what keeps people from recognising that this is what Muslims are like. Most Muslims don’t really have the same kind of ethnocentric group think or feeling that we see in Jews, for instance. So you are unlikely to find a Muslim “leader” who speaks as a Muslim for all Muslims. That would be contrary to the non-hierarchial structure of Islam. No one speaks for everyone else, only for himself.
I don’t believe the represent the average Muslim to anyone other than maybe their peers… the larger Muslim community, or maybe Indian Muslims etc may feel a tinge of pride at their ascent, but I doubt that they see them as anything community leaders.
And I agree with your second statement, Muslims in general seem to feel their ethnic and national bonds more strongly than religious ones.
Ahmed, I can’t believe now we are also being told that “educated” Muslims are the likes of Amanpour, (i had no idea she was Iranian until a year ago!), and Zakaria.
The “average” Muslim seems to “identify” a lot more strongly to their religion that these two.
Germany shuts up Finklestein as it did Pappe:
link to anis-online.de
BTW, what do the Gypsies say about the concept of the Shoah as unique?
The better question, Citizen, is why is it no one bothers listening to Gypsies when they do answer that? (Short answer, of course, is “they aren’t wealth enough.”)
The last time I took any pride in my local Jewish community was about a year ago, when the chief rabbi went to a Roma camp on the outskirts of the city, to show solidarity, following the adoption of anti-Roma policies by the Berlusconi government. Among the things he did while at the camp was to listen to the stories of elderly survivors of the “Porrajmos” (Nazi genocide of the Roma and Sinti peoples).
I tried to find out online how the systematic murder of Jews by the Nazis via a modern bureaucracy and industrial methods was uniquely The Holocaust, as compared to what and how the Nazis took care of the Roma and Sinti peoples.
The only explanation I got was that while Jews were slated for total extermination
in both Germany and all its occupied lands, the Roma and Sinti, while being equally so target in Germany per se, were not as blanket a target in occupied areas. The theory (presented as fact), was that in Nazi occupied lands, assimilated “Gypsies” were left alone; that is, Gypsies not very obviously
Gypsies living in the manner all Gypsies were thought to be born to, were left alone by the SS, etc. Anyone have any more on this?
Not to be crass but the answer is much more simple: Jews before the Holocaust (and after for that matter) have a significantly higher average wealth.
Now, this isn’t to single the Jewish community out. The same rules apply in the United States — was anyone really talking significantly about unemployment before it started impacting white middle-class families? African Americans have been suffering crippling levels of unemployment for decades.
And incidentally, Shmuel, I’m glad to hear that. In the same breath, the local anti-occupation movement where I am has a significant Jewish representation.
“All The Hasbara Fit To Print”?
Pingback: Do you have to be Jewish to report on Israel for the New York Times? — War in Context
This is a change. Not exactly Obama or Mitchell or H Clinton checking out Gaza personally,
but still, one of a Western countries’ main agents:
link to aljazeerah.info
Go Ireland!
To compliment Cook’s “reporting” in this piece is absurd. What reporting? He took someone out to lunch and repeated a lot of unsupported innuendo. Ethan Bronner has been writing about Israel/Palestine for close to 30 years! We don’t need to listen to some anonymous source spout generalities in a Jerusalem cafe. The only way to judge Bronner’s reporting is to read it and point out its flaws. Since he has been writing for three decades, it should be easy to judge how biased his reporting has been based on how events unfolded. I don’t know anything about the families, nationalities, love lives and financial holdings of most of the reporters I read. I read their articles and decide how credible they are. Cook could have done a real service by reading Bronner’s clips and exposing evidence of his bias. He could have tried to check the claims of his lunch partner to determine their veracity. Instead, he simply repeats unsupported claims and bloviates, exposing his own bias, which appears to be in favor of taking cheap shots at colleagues.
A few years ago I went to the West Jerusalem building where most of the foreign newspapers have their bureaux. One floor had offices for the Daily Telegraph, Le Monde etc. The floor below had the IDF press office. No need to even leave the building for your daily dose of hasbara. That was before al Jazeera and you tube and also before Israel’s most recent descent into ultra viciousness- 2006 vs Hezbollah.
Gideon Levy made a very good point in a video I saw recently on you tube. Every year the occupation becomes more brutal. Now it is far worse than 2000 . In 10 years’ time (if It lasts that long) we’ll look back on 2010 and think how mild it was.
seafoid, is it accurate that IDF monitors all writing that goes out of Israel?
Perhaps that’s why IDF office on the floor below foreign news bureaus?
PG: is it accurate that IDF monitors all writing that goes out of Israel?
Perhaps that’s why IDF office on the floor below foreign news bureaus?
I worked in the building seafoid refers to (Beit Agron), for about 4 years – in three different capacities. The military censor also has an office in the same building, and IDF Radio has its Jerusalem studios there. Regarding your question, the IDF censors long ago gave up monitoring foreign news reports from Israel, for the simple reason that there is very little they can do to stop them. In fact, for years the Israeli press has gotten around the censors by leaking stories to the foreign press and then citing “foreign sources”. The IDF Spokesman’s Office as well as the GPO continue to monitor reports coming out of Israel, withholding or revoking privileges to “punish” those who publish stories they don’t like. In the case of the IDF, cooperation and requests for information and/or visits to IDF installations, access to senior officers, etc. can be denied, and in the case of the GPO, press accreditation can be denied/revoked, which can be a real pain in the ass for journalists. A lot depends on the judgment of whoever happens to be in charge. The current head of the GPO is a right-winger and a little nuts, and has tried to use whatever leverage he has to force journalists to “behave”. A number of journalists I know have also complained of wiretaps, but that’s a somewhat different story.
The GPO is the Government Press Office (officially part of the Prime Minister’s Office), also located in Beit Agron.
In 1983, I took photos of the Israeli police breaking up a peaceful Palestinian protest in East Jerusalem and took them to the Associated Press office at the Israeli Press Center in Beit Agron with the hope of selling them for whatever they paid, but more important, tp get them out to the world.
Much to my amazement (I was somewhat naive at the time), the two men working for AP were both Israeli and guess what, they weren’t interested in the story or developing my film to see the photos.
With not a single exception that I can think of, the mainstream US media is as much a part of the story of Israeli control over the US political system when it comes to the Israel-Palestine story as is AIPAC.
For a follow-up on Cook’s story, check out Alison Weir’s excellent article, “Media Reporting in Israel, All in the Family” on CounterPunch yesterday:
link to counterpunch.org
The IDF doesn’t need to censor journos-most who live in Israel practise self censorship. They do what is expected of them. They live in nice apartments in West Jeruslaem, have Israeli friends and life is good. Why put all that at risk to find out what’s really going on in the West Bank or Gaza? Most of them don’t speak arabic.
Most journalists and editors probably unconsciously identify with Israelis more. They speak English and share so many Western values (in daylight, but not after dark when the doors are closed and they start working on those uppity Palestinians who need a good Zionist whuppin to keep them in line).
I went to a talk by John Pilger about 15 years ago. He said it would be impossible for him to get a regular job on a regular newspaper- the advertisers wouldn’t tolerate him more than once a month.
thank you Shmuel, Jeffrey Blankfort, and seafoid
Someone may have posted this already, if not, it is a full report on the conflict of interest in Bronner’s case, and should be listened to –
THE LISTENING POST – CONFLICT OF INTEREST
It is already on my site.
Interesting, in the same video; after covering Bronner, it covers the current struggle in Kenya over who will control mass media and content.
“Citizens’ knowledge of their governments’ true actions – made possible through their access to information – is an ideal of fundamental importance. It ought to always trump a state’s fleeting and capricious desires for prosperity, happiness, and even security or so-called interests.”
link to accessinitiative.org
The video also covers Iceland setting itself up as a legal haven for the world’s journalists and their employers, to protect them from oppressive libel laws, as for example, England’s.
You are correct Citizen, it is the proliferation of the “media” paradigm for its elite use, which is a global phenomena because it is a mere replication of the same process within the framework of elite Hegelian nations. The goal is the containment and use of information, disinformation, for the few wherever they exist on the face of the planet.
Juan Cole wins this week’s clueless award.
In his recent entry about Ajmadinejad’s comments, Cole wrote the following:
Personally, I see Zionism as just a garden variety form of modern romantic nationalism not different in any way from scores of other nationalisms (including Arab nationalism, Serbian nationalism, and Iranian nationalism).
link to juancole.com
What clue do you think he missed? Or clues?
‘Garden variety’ suggests something bred or cultivated on purpose by comparison with wild variants of the same growth. I would think that Herzl-style Zionism and Nasser-style ‘Arab nationalism’ were indeed cultivated things in comparison with Serbian nationalism, at least at the stage when Serbian nationalism was or even seemed to be a peasant movement against a religiously alien overlord. But Cole’s implied comparison between garden and hedgerow nationalism doesn’t fit will with his ‘not different in any way’. Again, he fails to remark that Zionism has been consistently acquisitive, aggressive and contemptuous of the rights of ‘non-nationals’ in a way that the others he mentions have rarely been. On recent Serb nationalism there is a somewhat demystifying and de-demonising article by Charles Simic, reviewing Mark Danner, in the Feb.11 New York Review of Books.
I see, MHughes. Here’s what he should have thought about more: “But other nationalisms are also guilty of exclusions, though there are unique aspects to the Zionist project.”
If there are unique aspects, that does not suggest “garden variety.”
The Iranian firebrand’s pov I thought was characterized pretty objectively in the article. The analogy meant bu said leader was the Zionist regime will eventually collapse of its own tenuous weight like the Communist USSR regime did. Russia still stands. So would Israel. But would it still stand as “Israel as Israel” in the way the Richard Wittys of the world demand?
“On recent Serb nationalism…,” this nationalism rose with the threat to the nations independence. The concentration on the region was specifically to bring it into “the fold” of the global “norm,” that is, lining up with the purposes of the dominant powers. In fact, the alarm brought about the acceleration of the ethnic cleansing. So the intervention charged the atmosphere, rather than averting an ongoing process, and the impetus for the attack was not the ethnic cleansing, but the cessation of the independence in the region. This resulted not only in the commiseration of the people, but not halting the drug contraband, in fact, giving it free reign. I could go on, but this ground has already been covered.
As far as Juan Cole, I think he is subject to times of lapse, simply because he is constantly under pressure because of his statements, and he wants to make sure he is not entirely cut off. He suffered a setback of ivy league promotion a while back, and he occasionally stumbles to preserve the little that he has.
The U.S/German dismemberment of Yugoslavia is highly instructive in regards to Jewish influence and media propaganda. The uniting of liberal American Jews in the press, women’s groups, human rights groups, and Jewish groups resulted in the most monolithic propaganda assault I have ever seen. With a few honorable exceptions (Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, William Blum, John Pilger), the Serbs were depicted as the new Nazis, the Croats and Muslims as innocent victims, and “humanitarian intervention” as a moral obligation. This in spite of the fact that during World War II the Ustashe Croats and the Muslims supported Hitler’s Germany, whereas the Serbs were the anti-German partisans. During the war, the Croats ran the Jasenovac death camp where tens of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma were put to death, Auschwitz style. One might be forgiven for thinking that American Jews might have had some sympathy for the Serbs, and be a little less supportive of the resurgent Ustashe. But Clinton needed a war and his unprecedented (at that time) support for Israel bought him the Jewish support he needed to pursue U.S. geo-strategic objectives. For additional discussion, go to link to saskck.blogspot.com and click on “Constant Deception”.
To get to “Constant Deception”, click on “Archives Oct 2005″
The Vatican was aligned with Israel I think, being anxious to restore an independent Catholic state to the Balkans – and I recall how in the UK the Thatcherite machine was intent on dismantling another commie rogue state. The Serbs never stood a chance against this massive ideological and religious constellation – not that that justifies, according to Simic’s plausible-seeming argument, their resort to the intransigent Milosevic regime.
MHughes976- I don’t know what you mean by the “intransigence” of the Milosevic regime. Some of the facts are these. In 1990, back when Yugoslavia was still united, prior to any fighting, the U.S. Congress passed the Foreign Operations Law of 1991 which, among other things, specified the cut-off of all aid, credits and loans to Yugoslavia within six months. The World Bank and IMF were directed to follow suite. The only money to be permitted was to go to the right-wing separatist forces. It was, in effect, a declaration of economic war against Yugoslavia. The CIA predicted a bloody civil war as a consequence.
The unilateral declaration of independence by the administrative district of Croatia was illegal under the Yugoslavian constitution (visualize California seceding from the U.S.). Large numbers of Serbs lived for centuries in the Krajina area of the district of Croatia and did not want to be a part of an independent Croatia ruled by the resurgent Ustashe led by Franjo Tudjman. Once Croatia became independent, the Ustashe began to terrorize the Serbs, and, with the help of the U.S. (training, arms, etc) ethnically cleansed Croatia, killing thousands of Serbs.
Throughout the whole bloody business, the U.S. worked to prevent peace, including scuttling European efforts which could have saved thousands of lives. Dayton was essentially a U.S. diktat similar to European proposals scuttled years earlier. Finally, the U.S. achieved its objectives at
Rambouillet, where it made “peace proposals” impossible for Yugoslavia to accept. Yugoslavia felt obliged to accept one outrageous proposal after another, including complete autonomy for Kosovo while insisting Kosovo have representation in the Yugoslav parliament. The U.S. finally forced Yugoslavia to reject the accords, however, by inserting into Annex B a clause stipulating that Yugoslavia would, in effect, accept NATO (not UN) occupation at Yugoslavia’s expense. In short, military surrender without a fight. One incredulous European asked a U.S. official why the U.S. insisted on such an unreasonable condition. The response? “Because the Serbs need a good bombing.”
As a consequence of this highly praised “humanitarian intervention,” Washington has achieved several objectives. First, it has broken-up Yugoslavia which had begun to drag its feet in implementing the neo-liberal Washington consensus. It has destroyed the Serbian infrastructure as
an object lesson to other small countries who might get funny ideas. Second, it has built the strategically located Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo to permit force projection in the area. Finally, and of critical importance, it has transformed NATO into a wide ranging U.S. mercenary strike force.
To sum up, I am unaware of any Yugoslavian intransigence, or what, if anything, Yugoslavia could have done to prevent its destruction once the U.S. decided on that course of action.
I meant to refer to, rather than endorse, Simic’s view, which is not so far from yours, Keith, except for thinking that Milosevic was guilty of some crimes and excesses. I hadn’t had time to evaluate what Simic said – you have certainly thought the matter through more rigorously than I have. I don’t look back with any pride on my country’s participation in that campaign. Robert Fisk was the best commentator on the matter at the time in the UK press. To my shame, I remember being unconvinced by him.
Cole won last week’s award as well in this blog post in which he suggested that the Israeli right wing is on the decline:
link to juancole.com
Cole never ceases to bewilder me, perhaps because I
first saw him as some sort of a radical when he is basically a liberal
reformist. That he doesn’t realize that the Israeli right, far from being on
the decline, is in the ascendency, that it is rapidly becoming a theofascist
state, is astonishing, as his belief that J Street represents a mood swing
in American Jewry. It doesn’t matter, of course, what the majority of Jews
think, only what that dedicated, well-heeled third or so who put Israel’s interests first DO, and not only have they have shown no signs of change, their positions have hardened.
Some of Cole’s comments during the second year of the Iraq war, on how the US
could do a better job against “the insurgents” were really off the wall, as
is much of this commentary, not the least of which is his placing much of the
blame on the odious David Frum for the Iraq war. That Cole clearly gives
his support to a Jewish state, and brags of working with Israeli academics,
plus staying on a kibbutz, may be is way of kissing the behinds of those Jews in academia who blocked his getting a professorship in Yale.
Alison Weir lays out how Bronner’s family bias is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes
to not giving Americans information they need as to what’s being done in their name and with their tax dollars:
link to counterpunch.org
The US congress dissed the Goldstone Report without reading it; they didn’t even bother to call in Mr Goldstone to get any information from the horse’s mouth, although along with Obama just gave Israel 30 billion dollars to tide the IDF over for another decade, so it could continue to pummel, strangle, and starve the Palestinian people, and allow Israeli settlers from NY to take more Palestinian land–all violations of US law forbidding sale or funding of weapons except in defence. In the unlikely chance some
flunky congressional aid happens to accidentally come to this blog, I hope they
take a look at these couple of video clips showing some of Goldstone’s assembled facts:
link to goldstonefacts.org
That’s a wonderful site
How do you get the Western media on your side? Well the Israelis insult them so that they will be better disposed towards Israel.
See that’s what pisses me off. It’s like Israel is the spoiled brat of the Middle East — they get pretty much everything on their birthday wish list and then they turn around and still kick us all in the shins, and scream and cry and make a spectacle of themselves in the UN about how the West are “such bad parents.”
More symptoms.
The Israel lobby may be the bull in the china shop of world politics but if the general public has no idea what’s going on by now (I didn’t myself till about 5 years ago) then stories about the political duplicity of news reporters aint going to register a blip on the conciousness of the American public.
The 3 billion is the fuel that keeps this 18 wheeler hurtling out of control down the freeway and I say cut it the fuck off!
98%n of all American citizens have no clue at all regarding our special relationship with Israel and what it has been costing us in terms of lives and treasure. The MSM keeps it that way. Free Press, in the terms of the First Amendment, is just a joke. The USA, like every other nation before it, is a nation where the masses are intentionally kept ignorant. Google who owns the USA media. It isn’t you. The stretch between Kenya and the USA, is not really huge in terms of free press, although Kenya has a fledgling media (mostly radio) and the US boasts about its freedom of speech and tradition there.
How shall we do that, Polly?
The cash flows both ways, I think and has a sort of perpetual motion quality. In the UK – just to show that America is not alone – we have ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ and ‘Conservative Friends of Israel’ making sure that both main political parties know which side their bread is buttered.
Several years ago, on her last trip to the United States, the Israeli historian told a dinner hosted by a Jewish Voice for Peace at a lavish San Francisco restaurant something the dinner guests did not want to hear, her view that what she saw at the time with the power of the Zionist lobby was ‘the Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ come to life. Several members of JVP’s leadership group felt that they had to make their responsere, all of which were pathetic and unconvincing.
The Israeli historian referred to above was Tanya Reinhart.
I thought that Tanya Reinhart, who died sadly young, had actually moved to the US.
I understand that while the sinister rhetoric of the Protocols has some originality, to be ascribed to the never-detected final author, and is certainly anti-Semitic, the basic argument about the ruthless use of the press to obtain political power, of which Reinhart was presumably thinking, is known to have been plagiarised from a pamphlet attacking a quite different (French imperial) target. So to say ‘this kind of thing can really happen’ is to borrow not from an anti-Semitic but from a liberal and anti-imperialist source.
Hey, Orwell wrote fiction t00–btw there’s a program series on his works on cspan this weekend. Does this mean his fiction is not a light, an insight? We can all spot his principles developed in his fictional works operating every day. Orwell had certain politics of his time in mind; he extracted the then elite power principles operating to manipulate the
intentionally made ignorant and misinformed masses. Shakespeare did this too. All his works were fiction. Orwell was more abstract. Shakespeare is timeless. Orwell
is timeless in a more obviously political way–in Shakespear’s day, the world was run by monarchies. Orwel speaks to modern nation states governance. The ruling character depicted remains the same. The first rule of propaganda remains the same. Always speak as if you care about the people or the world’s people. Then stir up their worst fears. That’s how selfish elites (which evolve; as they have in the USA, e.g.) keep their mojo and nice life styles.
Israel should begin by demolishing its illegal settlements, which are a war crime and in violation of international law. The almost half million illegal Israeli settlers should pack their bags and move if there is ever to be a Palestinian state.
Israel should be forced to abandon its two concentration camps and recognize the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state.
Anything less than calling Israel to account is a continuation of war crimes and US funding should cease. This is not picking on Israel like Charlie Brown. Every Israeli Jew gets much more US taxpayer money per capita than any US citizen living in the USA. Did the USA regime give New Orleans residents even half the break it gives Israeli Jews every year? How many US military grunts are on the streets? Would you rather be a homeless US X-grunt, or a settler in Israel from the USA? Which tin cup would you choose>
Yesterday on the news – a old chiefeditor for a danish newspaper called politiken (the politics) said in an interview that he worked as a israeli spies for two decades.
Over the years I have read a lot about these kind of connections here in scandinavia. Like in a newspaper called the Gothenburg post, a journalist who wrote about the middleeast (based on secondary sources, MEMRI and stuff) one day decided to aktually go there and look for himself. His reporting after that experience became much more israelnegative and he got transfered. Flemming Rose, the publisher of the Muhammedcartoons is supposed to have been jewish. Many of the jorunalists who write about middleeast here have jewish descent (I dont know any arab who writes about the middleast for a major newspaper)
But to be fair, atleast in sweden there is one major leftleaning newspaper where you can get more pro-arab-palestinian coverage. Lucky for them they let one of swedens most famous authors, write most of those articles so the antisemitesmear dont stick.
But I dont think its unfair. Its a matter of who owns what and connections.
How disappointing. When I lived in Denmark I used to like Politiken better than Berlingske Tidende. It was a more managable size, and it didn’t have a sports section.
Jonathan Cook could have found “Israel’s friends” around the globe including Fatah prime minister Salam Fayyad – had he been invited to the Herzliya Conference 2010 held in Israel early this month.
Herzliya Conference Vs Davos Conference on Racism
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Does it really matter what Bronner is “up to”? Isn’t the question more realistically put as “Does Bronner want his son to survive his Israeli Army service? Or does he want his son to stagnate in a useless posting where he will collect a record which make make him liable for prosecution.
It’s really simple, and Fisk won’t say it: If you want to report on Israel, and especially the I-P issues, you must leave hostages with the Israelis.