Some encouraging news from the New York Times. Wednesday’s article about U.S. efforts to avoid a UN vote on Palestine accepted comments from the public. As of this writing, 412 comments have been published, and the overwhelming sentiment is pro-Palestinian and highly critical of Israeli and U.S. efforts to deny Palestinians any semblance of self-determination. In fact, clicking on the Readers Recommendations feature shows that several dozen of the most popular comments unanimously lean strongly in this direction. Some other observations:
1) This trend has been more and more apparent in Times comments sections on articles/editorials/op-eds. This article is not an aberration, and the proportion of pro-Palestinian sentiment seems to be steadily increasing to what is now an enormously lopsided viewpoint.
2) The quality of the comments is generally quite impressive. A fair sample should be perused, but here’s just one example:
If there is a UN vote, and the US vetoes that vote, it will be clear to the world that the US values Israeli opinion more than we value the rest of the world's opinion, and more than we value human rights for the Palestinians. And that is just one more nail in our coffin as Israel slowly and inexorably drags us closer and closer to becoming the most hated country in the world and it's pariah partner.
3) While one might presume that Times readers are more liberal than average Americans, the commenters most certainly are not getting their ideas spoon-fed to them from the Times. Just this past week, a Times editorial warned that a UN vote on the Palestinian statehood initiative would be “ruinous,” and Isabel Kershner published an article about the Green Line that contains even more than the usual dose of subtly disguised but potent hasbara. The commenters are getting their information elsewhere and thinking independently. The Times readership appears much more progressive on Palestine than the paper’s editors and reporters.
another comment from the top of the pile:
“So, let me get this straight: Europeans who immigrated to Palestine a little over a hundred years ago to establish a colony based upon their ethnicity and religion were recognized by the United Nations as having the right to establish their own independent nation. However, sixty some years later, the indigenous Palestinian population continue to be told by the United States and Israel that now is not the time for the UN to recognize a State of Palestine. Meanwhiles, the Israelis continue to build illegal settlements in the lands internationally recognized as belonging to the Palestinians.
In the original language of the European settlers, “Chutzpah!”
>> If there is a UN vote, and the US vetoes that vote, it will be clear to the world that the US values Israeli opinion more than we value the rest of the world’s opinion …
Wouldn’t be the first time…
>> another comment from the top of the pile:
That comment perfectly sums up the massive f*cked-up-edness of it all.
Thanks David.
On the college campuses some of us have been working on over the last several decades….. the awareness has gone up considerably.
Real changes
Have also noticed real changes in the callers on Cspans Washington Journal. Far more well versed about the facts on the ground. Now the Washington Journal avoids the issue. And the Diane Rehm show seems to be going lite on all things middle east. This week she and her producers did not touch Erdogan’s trip to Cairo, the upcoming UN vote. etc.
Really seems they are now avoiding any topic that puts Israel in the bad light that they are in
You can always judge a publication by the letters those in charge choose to print. Going online to allow less restricted comments is a whole new ball game compared to the traditional letters to the editor that were used to maintain the echo chamber.
Times they are achanging. I haven’t read the Washington Post in a long while now, but seeing the comments at the NYT, I would be curious to see whether the online readership at WaPo has changed.
The power of independent journalism. This is great.
can’t remember who on mw quoted henry kissinger as saying something to the effect that even if israel existed the u.s. policy on the mideast would be the same. the same? even though the great polarizing land theft issue wouldn’t exist, so that there’d be no fear of a gulf oil cutoff, as per the 1973 oil embargo? doesn’t this suggest that for the elite few who run empire-usa, it’s not a matter of unhindered access to gulf oil at market prices, rather it’s total control, with the so-called democracy israel enabling said control in that its existence allows empire to hide its true intentions behind a fascade of “we have an obligation to protect the region’s only democracy.” And if herr kissinger is right, what does this say about the israel lobby? that perhaps when the going gets real bad, it could serve as a convenient fall guy?
I’ve been noticing this for years. Especially since 2006. Any time there’s an article on Israel/Palestine, the Times commenters are almost always more on-the-ball than the journalist. I think this is why Thomas Friedman quit allowing comments for his columns on Israel/Palestine. He was being humiliated by the commenters.