There should be a litmus test for American journalists who talk about Israel/Palestine to determine if they have the knowledge to be disseminating information about a highly important political issue to millions of Americans.
When you watch this CNN interview with Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, it’s clear Candy Crowley, the host of the Sunday morning show “State of the Union,” has no real, substantive background to be asking Oren about Israeli policy. It’d be exhaustive to go through all the propaganda that Oren spouted in the interview, but someone should really let Crowley know a few basic facts about the conflict so she wouldn’t just stare at Oren while he lies through his teeth.
The first question has Crowley quoting a Thomas Friedman Op-Ed that (not to toot my own horn) I debunked last week, with Oren happily saying that, while he disagrees with Friedman’s point that peacemaking with the Palestinians is only a “hobby” for Israel and not a necessity, he has “great personal and professional regard for Tom Friedman, he’s a great friend.” We’re treated here to a candid admission that reflects the incestuous nature of elite opinion makers and those in power. And if Crowley reads Friedman for her information on Israel/Palestine, no wonder she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Crowley should have challenged Oren’s false claim that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005 in order to create conditions for peace, and that Israel only received rockets and suicide bombings in return. That, incidentally, was also a point that Friedman said in his Op-Ed last Sunday.
Throughout the conversation, Crowley never mentions these key points about the conflict: Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land; all of the Jewish-only settlements are illegal according to international law; Palestinians have, for years now, called for a two-state settlement on the 1967 borders.
Does she even know those facts? How can you even have a conversation about Israel without stating those basic facts?
Easy. Look at Blitzer, Chris Matthews, Obbermann, Maddow, O Rielly, Hannity, Beck–even if you know such basic facts, you don’t point them out. PBS and Rose are no better.
They all muzzle themselves. They call it being good public servants, spreading the word
all US citizens need to know. L or R, they all keep the AIPAC muzzle tight on their mouths. They know where their bread side is buttered.
add my beloved C Span to that list. It’s Washington Journal moderators pull their punches on Israel, allow guests to weasel on Israel, endorse-by-silence blatantly false statements made by guests, cut off callers who speak negatively about Israel’s disproportionate influence on US affairs.
I suspect two forces are at work at C Span:
1. the usual subtle censorship, even tho C Span is NOT beholden to advertisers, it, and the journalists who function there, need to maintain access. As well, James Glassman is, if I’m not mistaken, some part of the management team at C Span — he was certainly treated with something akin to obeisance by Steve Scully in a Washington Journal visit a while back. Glassman is a thru-and-thru Israel-first ideologue, with very dangerous fingers on important buttons at VOA, Department of Defense, and State Dept.
Israel and Jews receive far more than their proportionate share of air time on C Span programming.
2. A second force is described by Karin Friedemann: The Emotional Violence of Jewish Advocacy:
More and more callers and speaking out against Israel in calls to C Span. It would be a good idea to increase the number of calls and the directness of the information communicated; “Israel is harming US interests” is not good enough.
Write a script, then make a call:
“Israel’s use of hasbara is a deliberate distortion of the kind of information essential to conducting a democracy; hasbara is….. You can learn about hasbara on the Mondoweiss.com website…”
or
“Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall doctrine is a foundational doctrine for the zionist state of Israel; it establishes as a modus operandi killing Arabs until they submit to Israeli dominance. Prof. Ian Lustick of University of Pennsylvania explains Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall doctrine in a video at edmaysproductions dot net/webvideo/irannuke.wmv”
Make the preparations. Make the call. Make a difference.
I’ve noticed that up to about six months ago, callers into the Washington Journal were allowed to speak their piece about Israel (without vulgar name-calling), and sometimes, the moderator would even ask them a few questions; but over the last six months or so, they get cut off much quicker and there is really any moderator follow-up, either to the caller, or to the guest. If the guest does respond, the moderator no longer asks them any hard questions.
really=rarely
Does it seem like that to others here? About a year ago Washington Journal treatment or questions and calls about Israel were being handled quite well; especially considering
there’s no other TV show that even gives hard questions about Israel any air time at all.
here’s an interview with Brian Lamp, which includes a bit about C-SPAN’s call-in screening process for Washington Journal:
link to congress.org
oops–excuse the typo: brian lamb
Why do Alex Kane needs to shout throughout the world to demand Crowley to tell the Israelis? Why he Alex Kane cannot tell them the Israelis himself? Is this not an indirect statement that he is much intellectually superior than Crowley? This act is a form of intellectual sensual self-gratification!
Worse, we still need someone to tell Crowly! why someone? Why can’t Alex Kane get the courage to tell Crowly himself? Why should he involve ourselves just to indirectly tell Crowly he’s an idiot? Does Alex Kane further suggests we the audience are idiots likewise?
Sorry to keep harping on the same note – but, again, do you really expect otherwise from so-called mainstream TV? It’s why most people under 50 get their preferred news from the internet.
The lack of real depth and intellectual honesty is one of the reasons I do not have cable television and never will. It is a complete waste of time and money. As Ted Turner said one time in an interview about when he owned CNN: never step on the toes of Rupert Murdoch ( AIPAC – same thing).
I’m with you Larry! Paying for TV? Like I would pay to have barrels of dogshit delivered to my home.
Besides, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you can watch them through the cable they can watch you! I’m always decently dressed, but still…
I kicked my TV to the curb after Gaza.
cnn offers free primetime advertising to israel.
softball questions set up ambassador to spew israel’s propaganda.
FOX news plays a weepy donation ad to give your money to poor, starving Jewish refugees from Russia every night. Been doing so for at least a month or two.
Your stomach must be made of steel to watch FOX without vomiting. I envy your talented and tough constitution.
I cover the Waterfront.
In this quarter we suspect it’s neither ignorance nor ineptitude, just the good old “chilling effect” rearing it’s ugly head.
If Ms. Crowley were to do anything EXCEPT toss underhand softballs to Oren or to any other Israeli poohbah, and then nod stupidly as the niagra-like torrents of Hasbara flow, no doubt she fears she’d be lucky to have a weekend graveyard shift doing rip-and-reads of the AP wire at some ultra-low wattage AM station somewhere in the Great Plains states.
No, far better to play it safe and act dumb and cultivate one’s career.
That’s right. You can only afford to confront ‘em if you’re a tenured genius like Chomsky. For the person in the street, the threat of losing their job is more than enough to keep them quiet.
Wonder why Richard Witty doesn’t know that; everytime somebody mentions it on this blog he feigns ignorance. OTH, that wouldn’t be a worry of his, or his friends, now, would it?
Candy,
Maybe it’d be a good idea if you learned that Israel is a racist, murderous “settler State”, an illegal, immoral Occupier currently ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, bulldozing their homes, stealing their land, starving them to death, and burning Palestinian children alive with white phosphorous. Then, you might be ready the next time you conduct an interview with some fine Israeli official. I mean if it was 1940, and you were radio interviewing Joseph Goebbels – you wouldn’t want to smile sweetly at his Nazi lies, would you?
Best Of Luck,
David Swyer
Malibu, CA
Phil,
Why don’t you provide us with links that direct us to CNN complaints department?
This way we’re not just all talking about it here in a hall of mirrors.
This would make your critique articles directed at the media a heck of a lot more pro-active.
I just went to the cnn site to help you out this time round but I could not find a direct link to the show’s producers/bosses. But here’s the closest that I could find:
link to cnn.com
If anyone can spare a couple of minutes to send out an email that would be cool.
You can also contact Candy directly on this link:
link to cnn.com
thanks Taxi, you’re a real boyscout, first helping old ladies across the street, then promoting first amendment activism. what next, square knots?
Hey I’m offering free rides in my cab too… champaigne and strawbery bonbons included :-)
Mmmmmm strawberry bonbons.
Candy Crowley is one of the worst television journalists working today.
She repeats the known facts that were just stated to her by whomever did the “toss” and adds little to know analysis that hasn’t been hashed out endlessly elsewhere first
She is simply terrible, and CNN gave her own show?
A pause that refreshes–from Fox News a day or so ago:
The Obama administration should be seriously considering a strike on Iran, according to neoconservative Fox News contributor Bill Kristol.
An Israeli Deputy Defense Minister said last week that he expected Israel would have to attack Iran within a year. Kristol believes it would be better for the US to attack first.
“I think we have to have a credible threat of force and the preparation to use force against Iran. It would be much better if we used force against — to delay the Iranian nuclear program than if Israel did and there is no evidence that the US government is being at all serious about the use force there,” Kristol told Fox News’ Chris Wallace Sunday.
Nina Easton, also appearing on the Fox News Sunday panel, quickly rebuked Kristol. “Use of force. You say that so blithely as if use of force — what happens to next day after the use of force?” she asked. “I think it behooves us to get the international community together. You have to have sanctions and you have to have a clear threat of force.”
The narrow range of debate on Fox News varied only slightly from sanctions and threatening force to launching a US-led war on Iran. Easton said she would also like to see the Obama administration “curry dissent” in Iran.
Kristol’s trigger-finger was too itchy to keep his views in the holster.
“Look, precisely because the consequences are so serious whether we use force or Israel uses force, a serious and responsible US government must think that through and play that out,” he responded. “I would say the Obama administration is so adverse to even hinting at the use of force that we don’t have the kinds of preparations we should have if Israel were to strike.”
We’re not gonna strike Iran, neither is Israel. Oh I know the Israelis are itching for it, but the logistics aren’t available – neither Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Jordan will allow passage through their airspace – all these countries are already on high alert regarding a pre-emptive Israeli strike and all these countries are ready (except Jordan) to shoot down any unauthorized planes in their sky, not to protect Iran but so as not to create internal objection and dangerous strife within their own domains.
Zionists talk shit about Iran because they don’t wanna talk about illegal settlements. It’s part of their PR camgain of distraction.
Israel will fight Iran through stirring shit up with hizbollah like they did in ’06 – they will attempt to widen the conflict so as to have a good excuse within that frame work.
Also note that Israeli intelligence on Iran nukes is limited. Nothing is crystal clear and certain to them on that front.
Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam said in a recent radio program called Moral Politics (?) that he thought it was possible that Israel would attack Iran.
he’s worried. for Jews. ’cause if Iran is harmed, harm may come to Jews in the US.
Iran War game scenario
bonbons, meh, too sweet. the strawberries, are they fresh? small? they make my head hurt. sometimes they make me burp. peel me a grape. make it kosher. life is so hard. sigh
Sure anything’s possible, but they’re not gonna attack.
Here’s your bowl of peeled grapes buddy… and here’s a napkin to keep your nimble fingers clean :-)
seeds! the grapes had seeds ;>}}}}
I pray that Iran is not harmed and that the US comes to its senses and does no further harm (did you see the video in Annie’s comment in the ‘Pinkwashing’ article?)
I have a different prayer for Kristol, but it’s best if god’s not listening to that one; he would not be pleased.
The war game scenario referenced by Silverstein appeared last Sunday as a knockoff
from Sanger’s NYT article–in the St Petersburg Times–it’s first assumption is
Israel attacks Iran without telling the US. The parlor game ends 8 days later, with
Israel content it has suceeded in pushing back Iran’s bomb for a couple of years–it’s strategic objective; and the US on the verge of it’s plan to destroy Iran’s air, sea, and land power in and around the Straits of Hormuz–with no indication beyond that next-step tactic as to what the US’s strategic objective/key interest is. Sanger comments that nobody knows what Iran will do as nobody knows about Iran’s decision-making process.
I have heard from some not so credible sources that Saudi Arabia would look the other way if Israeli planes were to use their airspace.
link to israelnationalnews.com
The Israeli article in question seems to get its source from Der Spiegel (the same source that tried to claim that Nasrallah killed Hariri) and from the London Times.
Israel would certainly like this to be so.
My problem is that Saudi only denies this in the weakest tones.
There would be an instant revolt in Saudi Arabia if the House of Saud allowed Israel over its ‘consecrated’ air space – you’d better believe it – main topics of obssessive discussion in Saudi Arabia are: Jerusalem and the Mossad.
Saudi Arabia would much prefer America attack Iran from their fleets docked in the Persian/Arabian gulf but Kuwait and UAE won’t allow it because it puts their cities and businesses in direct firing line. That’s why these countries including Saudi Arabia have already started constructing their nuclear ‘energy’ plants, for civilian and friendly use, of course.
Fact is, the mid east already IS in a nuclear arms race.
And already has been for decades, for that matter.
Another assumption of the Saban Center 8-day parlor game is Israel uses a refueling base hastily set up in the Saudi Arabian desert without Saudi knowledge. And that
it is unclear to the Iranians if the Saudis are active participants or not.
Kenneth’s Pollack’s analysis of the Saban Center parlor game:
link to brookings.edu
One factor not dealt with in the parlor game is China, which is very dependent on Middle East Oil and this dependence is increasing by the day. As somebody remarked elsewhere in this thread, the Chinese navy has recently made its debut in the Persian Gulf–how long will it remain an American Lake?
link to mideast.foreignpolicy.com
“There would be an instant revolt in Saudi Arabia if the House of Saud allowed Israel over its ‘consecrated’ air space ”
—————————-
Don’t count on it Taxi..I wouldn’t…
Unless the passing plains write something in the clear sky: “Allah is not great”. That might cause a bit of a stir, but that’s about it.
The Palace Wahabis who are the King’s brothers and cousins are the most militant Wahabis, obssessed with Jerusalem and the sanctity of the Islamic Guardianship – there’d be an instant internal assassination/coup if the king allowed Israeli airspace passage for a strike on Iran. These palace Wahabis have no sense of humor, they hate the Israelis for occupying Jerusalem more than they hate the Iranian mullahs – also the ancient desert Jews tried to asssassinate their prophet Mohammad and the Wahabis have not forgiven the Jews for this and they never will. These Wahabis are determined to have their own Saudi Nukes and it serves this purpose for them to have Iran actually aquire nukes as a legitimate (?) excuse for developing their own. The Americans won’t help with the building of the Saudi nukes (Israel won’t let us) but China and France are more than ready to help.
In all of this talk about an attack on Iran, something continues to bother me. First of all, I think the leadership of both the U.S. and Israel are more-or-less clinically insane. How else to explain the continued existence of nuclear weapons which have the power to end life on this planet in a relative moment? How else to explain the U.S. President and Secretary of State endlessly reiterating that “all options are on the table” regarding Iran? How else to explain the U.S. military’s efforts to develop low yield Nukes to be used as just another weapon?
All of this in spite of the fact that the world has comes perilously close to nuclear war already, one of the closest occurring during the Cuban Missile Crisis when a Soviet submarine officer blocked an order to fire nuclear-armed torpedoes. Yet, we continue to regard nuclear weapons as essential to American power.
I recall reading somewhere that low level nuclear winter (nuclear autumn?) could occur with catastrophic results with only about 100 warheads exploding. Now the thought occurs to me that five or so low level nukes would be doable, possibly somewhat offsetting global warming. I can’t help wondering if somewhere in the bowels of the pentagon they aren’t hatching plans to normalize nuclear weapons while offsetting global warming. I know this sounds crazy, but some of these guys are crazy and that is what worries me. As for Iran responding, the attack itself would be sufficiently devastating, that when combined with the possibility of a nuclear follow-up attack, Iran would be forced to choose between surrender or suicide, and U.S. Imperial power would be reasserted. There is a logic to it. The fact that things would likely spin out of control hasn’t been much of a deterrent in the past, and may not be now. I don’t think that this is a probable occurrence, but the fact that it may be even remotely possible is cause for concern. How long can we have nuclear weapons before they are once again used?
First of all, I think the leadership of both the U.S. and Israel are more-or-less clinically insane.
You are far from being alone in this viewpoint.
I spent a good number of years working in the Middle East, and many of those years were spent doing government contracted work.
Naturally, I met a lot of people who worked with the state department who echoed the sentiment that American foreign policy with the rest of the world was based largely on “Realism” and “Real Politick” but when it came to the Middle East it was based on “retardation” and “Israeli-first doctrines.”
I’ll also admit that our foreign policy in Europe, East Asia, and Africa is marred and far from being grounded in the principles of a Realist but if you had to compare our foreign policy towards East Asia, vs our foreign policy towards the Middle East you would end up smashing your head against wall trying to figure out wtf these policy makers are thinking.
Our cold war policy in the Middle East was a disaster thanks to our Israeli-centric foreign policy. Instead of being able to cultivate allies to ward a Soviet Presence in the region, we attempted to maintain a strong commitment to Israel while juggling the various Middle Eastern governments. In a sense its a miracle the Soviet Union did not get a stronger foothold in the region (well not really a miracle because the Soviet Union expended most of its energies in Europe).
Today our foreign policy in the region follows the same flawed logic. Fortress Israel must be protected and armed to prevent Iran from rising up despite the fact that Israels geographic and political position can’t do anything to prevent Iran becoming the hegemonic power of the Persian Gulf region (thus threatening American hegemony in the region).
What most realists know must be done to prevent Iran from rising up is to rally the Arab states against Iran economically, politically, and if need be militarily. Realists know that this can NEVER ever happen so long as the Palestinians continue to suffer under the yoke of Israeli oppression.
Iran has positioned itself quite convincingly as the Saladin of the Holy Land, and continues to expose the so called moderate regimes (SA, Egypt, Jordan; those regimes that cooperate with America and Israel in their oppression of the Palestinians) as collaborators. This of course isint to say that Iran is some benevolent utopia, but neither are any of the regimes in the Middle East.
Many people in the region understand whats going on around them, and the leaders of these countries know that what little credibility they have (with their people) will fly out the window if they were to support an attack on Iran, especially while their leaders are doing nothing to aid the Palestinians and in some cases collaborating with Israel in its policy of ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people.
Anyway, so long as our foreign policy in the Middle East revolves around putting Israels needs first (even before the needs of the United States, much less the other hundreds of millions of people in the region), we will continue to lose. We will lose the virtual unconditional support we get from most Arab regimes today, we will lose even more credibility in the eyes of the world for our unconditional support of a racist apartheid regime, and eventually other powers will come to fill the void that we did so much to create.
It’s true that Arab Islamic states, the oil-rich ones, don’t care too much for the Palestinian people. But they really do very much care about the status of Jerusalem. They’ll sell out the Palestinians, but NEVER Jerusalem.
You’re right about the schemers in the pentagon – we’re now developing mini nukes to be used as bunker-busters for nuclear plants buried some 15 miles underground, like the Iranian plants. The petangon is rushing the mini-nukes project in the hope of ‘testing’ them on Iranian underground plants. But Iran is closer to building their nukes than we are configuring the mini ones.
The effects of these mini nukes are aparently more devestating to the enviroment than the ones dropped from the sky on open terra firma.
The major player in this you didn’t mention is China. China will not allow Iran to be nuked, maybe attacked a little but not nuked. If the heat on Iran becomes too unbearable before they’ve tested their nukes, Iranians under this circumstance would be willing to offer bargain oil deals to China and attach themselves to its protectorate. China is waiting for this scenario to happen as this is their best strategic energy manuevre.
Last week for the first time in living memory, Chinese fleets arrived by invitation from the Gulf states into Gulf waters. China now, on the quiet, has a military foothold in the region. More Chinese fleets are expected over the next five years. America and Israel are most unhappy about that.
Candy Crowley sounds as if she thinks she’s talking with some American pundit, not with the Israeli ambassador, whose job is to speak for his country’s government. Why else would she ask this question (at time 2:57):
“Do you look at this and not see anything that Israel has done that has been provocative, that has sort of led to this, what’s been a real standstill?“
A few years ago, a study came out of a British university (can’t remember which one — not Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Manchester, Edinburgh, or London) reporting that most people in Britain (which has a far less Israel-indoctrinated press than the US) believed that it was Palestinians who occupied Israel, not the other way round.
This kind of study would be killed in the US, but my guess is that it would show something similar. A few more questions would show people placing Israel somewhere in Nebraska or Brazil.
The only thing that can be said for Candy Crowley is that (unlike most American ‘reporters’ these days) she was not chosen for appearances. But the raw fact of American journalism is that ability to get at the truth has not been a qualification AT ALL for being a journalist for at least 30 years. Expertise is saying “yes”, ability to brown-nose, skill in sucking up to people in power — these are the key qualifications of American journalists, as indicated (surprisingly) in a Politico essay on “How media sucks up to the White House” (surprising because Politico is well-embedded in the mainstream media’s servile obedience to power).
The question I ask is: Do Crowley, Blitzer, Koppel, Sawyer, Friedman, Rose, etc., know the facts and just dance around them? Or are they stupid, f*#king, braindead morons?
They’re entertainers who dance like white boys.
. . . dance like white boys and think they got It. Can’t dance, can’t entertain (can’t entertain anybody but themselves).
I don’t mean those last two lines quite as idly as they sound. The power of delusion is fantastic (literally). I am certain that there are fairly well-informed people who genuinely feel that Palestinians, en masse, systematically victimize all Israelis. Or feel that Israel’s occupation of Palestine really is necessary for self-defense.
This delusional state infects American thinking (or un-thinking) on many issues. I’ve heard reporters express deep surprise, even shock, at the suggestion that the US may really have committed war crimes. Or at the suggestion the financial con-job provides solid evidence of the failure of capitalism (at least as practiced in the US). People might really differ on these issues. But time and again, you hear Americans — including reporters and politicians — speak with a dogmatic faith that shows they don’t think one whit about what they are saying. They parrot the idiocy they learned in church or high school, or (I have to conclude) leading universities.
Pingback: First iPad buyers excited, curious | Gold Standard Reviews
Pingback: Frum: My dream product from Apple | Gold Standard Reviews