Here is an important matter that I have been sitting on for days and that people who care about American support for Palestinian oppression need to be aware of: the extent to which Firedoglake, a leading progressive site, suppresses criticism of Israel. The battle demonstrates that even inside the left, the Israel lobby is a strong force. Indeed, the founder of the site, movie producer Jane Hamsher, has dismissed concern for Palestinians as a "pet issue."
As I have said often, our country cannot make progress on this critical policy issue until people who care about Palestinian freedom find one another and make a political combination to take on the Israel lobby. And one way we will find one another is by taking on the corruption inside the left when it comes to human rights in Palestine.
The latest evidence of FDL’s entrenchment is an exchange yesterday at Firedoglake’s community site, The Seminal. An FDL author whom I follow– Kathleen Galt, who writes under the name Leen and for whom Palestine is front and center– did a post called "Change?" saying that Israel/Palestine continues to be off limits for the liberal mainstream media:
Does the Israeli Palestinian conflict, expanding illegal settlements, humiliation of Palestinians, bulldozing of Palestinians homes, destruction of Palestinian olive trees, continue to be off limits to so called progressive MSM host like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Dylan Ratigan, Ed etc? I think this critical issue is still off limits to most MSM outlets.
Galt did a search of several progressive broadcasts and found not a peep about Palestine.
"So my question is this. Do folks think that anything has changed about the amount, depth, honesty of coverage by our T.V. MSM over the last several years? Has anything changed?"
In the subsequent comment thread, Galt complained that leftwing blogs were also blindered. And she specifically mentioned Rayne, the moderator of The Seminal.
I am also very interested in which so called progressive sites were blocked to discussing this critical issue, which sites drug their progressive feet on the issue, demanded higher standards of definitions of terms “zionism” than they demand of other over used general terms? Selective discrimination etc of certain issues but not others. Avoid having their heavy hitters or bringing on a heavy hitter to blog about this critical issue every week? Blog clogs of sorts specifically clogged on this issue.
Crooks and Liars has been closed down to this issue from the beginning, Huffington Post has opened up…
Still wondering why Rayne has specifically targeted this topic and is demanding higher standards for this issue more so than any other issue?
Rayne responded with a sharp rebuke:
Galt responded in her typically thoughtful manner:
Many of my posts have been recommended. There have been times where folks have come out of the woodwork and folks who regularly make comments here and stated that they greatly appreciate what I have posted here…. [I am] just suggesting that having a qualified individual do regular post[s] about the I/P conflict might just might be a path for FDL to take on this critical issue. This is not just my issue. You may personally [be] in the dark about this issue. For decades middle east leaders, former Presidents, former heads of the IAEA, former and present weapons inspectors, former and present CiA analyst etc have stated that the I/P issue is the most critical issue to resolve in the middle east. Now you can keep attempting to minimize the importance of this conflict but that does not change the situation. You can attempt to close down the discussion, debate etc here but that in and of itself says a great deal…
Beautiful, huh? And obvious.
Galt then asked about the process: why there was no one in the FDL wheelhouse working on the issue. Rayne smacked that down.
Leen, you’re off your own topic again, in your own thread. This was supposed to be about change or the lack thereof in mainstream media coverage, and your last several comments have drifted further and further from that.
There will be no detailed discussion about process. In my 14+ years working in online community management, such discussions are often used to game the site.
Now some back story. On August 14 at The Seminal, Galt criticized Jane Hamsher, the author, producer, and founder of Firedoglake, for appearing on Washington Journal on CSpan and talking leftwing politics for 45 minutes and saying nothing about Israel/Palestine. Galt wrote:
This interview with Jane Hamsher (Firedoglake) on Washington Journal is fascinating. Jane was on discussing the stance of the Obama administration on many issues and how the left feels about those stances.
While I appreciate Jane’s willingness to touch upon and her hard work on many issues. Her willingness to call Dem Reps and the Obama administration out on so many issues. And I also know she cannot make all issues her "pet issues" But why does she avoid bringing up this critical issue when she so clearly has the opportunity? How is this any different than our MSM talking heads? She brought up Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet she completely avoided this humanitarian crisis and decades long conflict and how the Obama administration is dealing with it during these 45 minutes. Did not even whisper about it.
At one point on this blog she called my efforts to bring up this issue here at Firedoglake my “pet issue”
This is one of the most critical issue[s] in the middle east. The issue that the 9/11 commission even mentioned. The decades old conflict that many leaders in that part of the world have endlessly referred to as the most critical issue to resolve. The issue that former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit Micheal Scheuer, Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and many many others state is the most critical issue to resolve. Jane and others will not touch it. She even criticizes others who do make an effort to shed light on this conflict.
She had a prime opportunity to shed some light on this issue during her 45 minutes on Washington Journal.She did not. Silence. Not any different than talking heads in the MSM.
During this interview Jane referred to herself as “left of the left” on many issues. How is avoiding even mentioning this issue progressive?
When Jane was asked who her favorite Reps were she mentioned Rep Grayson and Rep Barney Frank. Both of these Reps support Israel no matter how many UN resolutions they are in violation of, how many illegal settlements they keep expanding and building, how many Palestinian homes are bulldozed etc. They both support more aggressive actions towards Iran. Can anyone tell me how these stances are progressive?
Now remember Jane takes pride in calling others out on the mat. But is incapable of taking the same kind of criticism from others.
Go ahead Jane and others knock me out. I know you are smarter etc than me. I appreciate all you do but why do you keep avoiding this critical issue when you have a clear and totally appropriate opening to bring it up?
Hamsher quickly responded to Galt in the comment thread:
I didn’t mention it because THEY DIDN’T ASK ME ABOUT IT.
I didn’t mention marijuana legalization either, because they didn’t ask me about it. I didn’t mention Social Security privatization, because they didn’t ask me about it. Both of these are issues I’ve been writing about extensively.
If I was going to inject anything into the conversation, it would have been the subjects I’ve been writing about and have some knowledge of. I didn’t. I followed the format and responded to the interviewer’s questions, as most civil guests do.
This paddling was soon followed by others. Seaglass made it clear that Zionism is part of the left: