JJ Goldberg
This is delicious. The New York Times is changing. Everyone smells the change in the wind. The landmark Sarah Schulman pinkwashing piece, the references to the Occupation... It looks like Jill Abramson is having a remarkable, quiet effect on the gray lady's coverage of the issue at the heart of Middle Eastern foreign policy (and blue state media social culture).
JJ Goldberg at the Forward has, as they say in Briddish, his knickers in a twist over the shift: "'Pinkwash'? 'Occupation'? What's Up at NYT Op-Ed?" Goldberg describes the great pinkwashing op-ed as "astoundingly hostile." And questions a headline on Gershom Gorenberg's piece in yesterday's Times as "seriously bad:" "Israel’s Other Occupation."
Hey, the wind has shifted. Be there or be square. The Schulman understanding of the occupation and the hasbara that rationalizes it is gaining traction across the American left. Let's have a debate! Goldberg is on the same side as David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, Mr Israel lobby, whom he quotes:
David Harris of the American Jewish Committee deconstructed the piece in a smart blog post earlier in the week, arguing that the piece itself is too “preposterous” to get excited about but the Times’ decision to publish it—out of the hundreds of submissions it gets every day—suggests something disturbing is going on at the Times.... [Harris writes,]
"Schulman, of course, is entitled to her views, however outlandish they may be.
"But why the Times opted to publish them is another matter entirely. The op-ed page isn’t exactly wide open to just anyone. Other than the regular columnists, available space for would-be contributors is at quite a premium.
"What prompted this publishing decision? Beats me."
I don’t usually buy into Times-as-anti-Israel blather, but the “Pinkwashing” piece was beyond inexplicable and the headline on Gershom’s piece [Goldberg refers to Gershom Gorenberg by first name] is the second clunker in less than a week. Is the Times’ new op-ed editor, a former fashion and culture maven, that dim on Middle East politics? Does she not read her page’s headlines? Is she trying to make trouble for her bosses? Or is this what she thinks?
Wait-- Is she trying to make trouble for her bosses? Explain, what does that mean?
Update. Writes a friend: Wait a second. When was the last time the NYT ran a Palestinian opinion? ...and it's not that long since the Goldstone piece. I hope you're right, but I hope Harris doesn't lastingly frame the issue.
“It looks like Jill Abramson is having a remarkable, quiet effect on the gray lady’s coverage of the issue at the heart of Middle Eastern foreign policy”
Maybe, but has a long way to go to convince me. Still, if words like “pinkwashing” and “Occupation” (and, in Gorenberg,”price tag” implying civil war) have slipped by — and a new editor is likely not only to be “new” but also cautious of long-standing shibboleths — then maybe there is change, either because the new editor (new for no particular reason) just wants change, or, more likely, new because the new editor was chosen in order to introduce the new very-very-slightly more honest and more critical line.
(JJ Goldberg objects not to the word “occupation” which he uses accurately, with no obfuscation about “administered territories”) but to the title “Israe3l’s other occupation”, which suggests that Israel merely “occupies” rather than “owns” its pre-1967 territory. An interesting close reading of the NYT op-ed’s TITLE.)
It’ll be a long time before the NYT’s apparent mincing hesitation-step toward honesty and equal treatment of “the people”, on the one hand, and the lobbies (esp. AIPAC) and the corporations, on the other, creates anything like a level playing field.
Phil — listen up! — we still need you!
“Not open to just anyone.” No, only to Zionists.
“The op-ed page isn’t exactly wide open to just anyone.”
Yeah, I caught that too. I remember being in my mentor’s apartment in Mnahattan, and there were people there who said, “Hell, we”ll just have the Times run an op-ed for us tomorrow.”
What, having Ethan Bronner as the Times’ I/P reporter cum hasbarist-in-residence is not enough for JJ?
This is pathetic. It’s like the good-cop, bad-cop routine. On the one hand Gorenberg revises history and obfuscates facts, and on the other hand Goldberg disagrees with him as though Gorenberg has told some inconvenient, Earth shattering, mind blowing truth.
There is a lack of genuine integrity in all this. And it’s nauseating that these discussions are taking place within a tribalist Jewish Establishment that excludes Palestinians and engages in relentless handwringing.
One of the most effective techniques used by Zionists is to make hysterical attacks on moderate critics, making them look more radical. That’s what Goldberg is doing. And the New York Times can be relatively critical, because that is not where most Americans get their impressions of the Middle East. The Israeli press is even more open, because it can afford to be.
“This is delicious. The New York Times is changing. Everyone smells the change in the wind”, says Phil. It smells like the same old shit to me.
michael oren has also lambasted the nyt
link to facebook.com
and here’s jpost
link to blogs.jpost.com
the rw blogs are having a field day over this. a little too close for comfort eh?
Exactly Annie- they doth protest too much.
Michael Oren isn’t working his crossover magic ! !!
Can’t he deliver America to bibi like in the old days?
Where is his mojo gone?
Is the US waking up to his Hebrew polished turd song and dance routine ?
Did he think his powers would last forever?
Did that UCal Irvine counteroffensive land on the bad karma side?
RE: “Is she [the Times’ new op-ed editor, a former fashion and culture maven] trying to make trouble for her bosses?” ~ David Harris of the American Jewish Committee
TRANSLATION: All right boys, it’s payback time! Let’s teach her bosses at the N.Y. Times a great, big, nasty lesson. In other words, lets make a “Whole Lotta Trouble” for them. Its time for a sh_tstorm of biblical proportions. Let’s give the N.Y. Times the old ‘Goldstone treatment’*!
RE: “Schulman, of course, is entitled to her views, however outlandish they may be.” ~ David Harris of the American Jewish Committee
MY COMMENT: Naturally! Of course! [dripping in sarcasm]
* SEE – Sinning against Zionism: Traitor to Country, by William A. Cook, Dissident Voice, 4/21/11
That’s a great article, Dickerson.
“The Zionist world needs no Hell since it heeds no conscience. It exists on one foundation, a solid block of ice that freezes the soul of all who bear allegiance to its creed of absolute obedience, an ancient form of tribal slavery bound by fear that shackles the soul, by isolation that instills despair, by humiliation that corrodes self, and by victimhood that bonds the tribe in self-perpetuating agony.”
Wow!….that describes the uber zionism to a T.
P.S. RE: “It’s time for a sh_tstorm of biblical proportions. Let’s give the N.Y. Times the old ‘Goldstone treatment’!” ~ me, above
Strapping Young Lad: Shitstorm (VIDEO, 04:22) – link to youtube.com
But when they succeed in having her removed from her position, no one will be allowed to point out that this proves the control Jewish Zionists have over the contents of the media.
The NYT will not require the Zios to tell them something fresh is happening. This just cannot be a result of a misinformed newbie. She’d have to have known the NYT’s “red lines” and if she crosses them, she is known immediately, inside, to have done so, and she does it with approval. The lines are now “pink”, not “red”.
She’d have to have known the NYT’s “red lines” and if she crosses them, she is known immediately, inside, to have done so, and she does it with approval.
I tend to agree.
Wait a second. When was the last time the NYT ran a Palestinian opinion?
President Abbas’ “Long Overdue Palestinian State” Op-Ed last May which discussed the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. link to nytimes.com
I think we need more evidence before anyone can say the wind has shifted. It is encouraging but it remains anecdotal.
Yeah, let’s have a bit more evidence before starting the party. I would like to see the Times permit online reader feedback to critical-of-Israel articles.
If he thinks that was “astoundingly hostile”, imagine what he’d think if the NYT covered the conflict in a fair and honest way on a regular basis. Of course it’s always been funny how many Israel supporters think the NYT or Tom Friedman or both are hostile to Israel because what they put out is less one-sided in Israel’s favor than what they’d prefer to see. There’s a sense of entitlement at work here.
Astoundingly hostile Israel
link to haaretz.com
“Israel’s Defense Ministry apologized Monday for the treatment of a pregnant American news photographer who said she was strip searched and humiliated by Israeli soldiers during a security check. Lynsey Addario, who was on assignment for the New York Times, had requested that she not be forced to go through an X-ray machine as she entered Israel from the Gaza Strip because of concerns for her unborn baby. Instead, she wrote in a letter to the ministry, she was forced through the machine three times as soldiers “watched and laughed from above.” She said she was then taken into a room where she was ordered by a female worker to strip down to her underwear. In the Oct. 25 letter sent by the newspaper said Addario, a Pulitzer Prize winner who is based in India and has worked in more than 60 countries, had never been treated with “such blatant cruelty”
Where’s eee? I guess the borgs who did this couldn’t have been Jewish, eh ?
And how about this beauty ?
“The New York Times bureau chief in Israel, Ethan Bronner, welcomed the planned changes but said the newspaper remains shocked at the treatment Addario received and how long the investigation took.”
Bronner obviously figured out she wasn’t Palestinian as otherwise treatment would have been par for the course. That Zionist switch in his brain mean this case is an outrage but the rest are not.
It’s a truism that the US media is disproportionately Jewish and even more concentrated at the upper echelons where decisions are made. It’s absurd to believe that 100% of these support the occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Of those in oppostition, 100% have, to date, been unwilling to go public. The fearful silence of these owners/operators sends a clear message to each and every underling reporter below. Were someone at Jill Abramson’s level, to break the silence, think of the floodgates that might be opened.
Well if the Iran coverage is any sign, nothing has changed in the neoconnish bias of the NYT. So when Phil marvels: “It looks like Jill Abramson is having a remarkable, quiet effect on the gray lady’s coverage of the issue at the heart of Middle Eastern foreign policy”, I’d rather remain cautious for just a little while… The effect is way too quiet where it matters.
“Is the Times’ new op-ed editor, a former fashion and culture maven, that dim on Middle East politics?”
Of course. If you’re not pro-Israel, then you’re simply too stupid to understand the Middle East and it’s mind-boggling complexities.
I mean, we’re white, they’re brown. They have to die to make way for our Tanakh Disneyland.
Maybe the NYT is having second thoughts about some day being known as the US equivalent of the Völkischer Beobachter ( The People’s Observer, Germany’s leading newspaper and mouthpiece for the regime.)
Nazi propaganda
The Propaganda Ministry used many media to further the National Socialist message and maintain control over the people. Posters, newspapers, publishing, and the arts were all used and explicitly controlled by the Ministry.
link to irmep.org
The 1963 congressional hearings on ZOA activities.
On May 19, 1970, the Dow Jones Observer reported, “In 1963 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigated the Jewish Agency and uncovered a ‘conduit’ operation run by an organization called the American Zionist Council. Over an eight-year period, this council received more than $5,000,000 from the Jewish Agency to create favorable public opinion in this country for Israeli government policies. The Senate investigation closed down the conduit, but the extensive propaganda activities still go on.”
Read all about how the Zios infiltrated the US press and media from the get go to control the content and promote Israel. Really nasty bunch too….would send people out to get anyone who wrote or spoke against Israel.
But now we have the net…not so easy for special interest to propagandize us when you can do the research yourself.
ACLU sues AATA over refusal of anti-Israel bus advertisement
Posted: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 5:46 p.m.
link to annarbor.com
Oh good, another lawsuit.
JJ may become even more distressed.
Everyone is disrespecting Israel and the zios these days.
“The occupation is the term commonly used to denote Israeli control over the territories it conquered in 1967. That’s what the word means (when you’re not talking about a job): governance of a territory that doesn’t belong to the governing power but was captured in war. “(JJGoldberg)
Well, how did Zionists acquire Israels’s state territory, then? Writing love letters?