NPR blames the victim: Emad Burnat brought suffering to Bil’in by filming occupiers

Israel/Palestine
on 66 Comments

An appalling report on the great film “5 Broken Cameras,” by Larry Abramson of NPR last night, suggested that filmmaker Emad Burnat had brought violence upon his tiny occupied village, Bil’in, by seeking to document the oppression.

Here (thanks to Susie Kneedler) is the end of his report:

ABRAMSON: [Hamza] Suleiman [20, a photographer in Bil'in] says that Israeli soldiers are more frightened of cameras than of the stones that are often thrown at them. But his camerawork has already cost Suleiman and his family a lot. He’s been hit by gunfire and spent 11 months in prison. His mother, Fatima, says she wishes he’d put the camera away…

It’s a complaint that Emad Burnat’s wife also makes during “5 Broken Cameras” as she questions the price her family must pay for his project. In this lasting conflict, cameras are an important witness to suffering, but they also may be the cause of some of it.

A journalist questioning the rightness of journalism! When that journalism is a means of documenting oppression, no less.

I see the NPR’s commenters are all over this. Thomas Antenucci writes eloquently:

“Sometimes it’s [the cameras] that cause suffering”…. What a
stunning example of blaming the victims.

Do we hear the Syrians blamed for photographing the brutality of the Assad regime? Only with Israel does NPR blame the victims
for daring to witness their oppression as the settlements steadily expand and grab more land.

The filmmaker is shot, beaten and imprisoned. His mother wails in fear. And his camera “caused” this suffering?

Abramson should find work at Fox News, not NPR.

The other disturbing thing about Abramson’s report is that it presented the conflict as an even-handed one, in which settlers are also whipping out cameras to document Palestinian lies. And that in the actual broadcast (not included in the transcript), Abramson also said the following:

“Palestinians argue that the barrier has cut them off from agricultural land and effectively serves as a border slicing through territory the Palestinians believe should be part of a future state.”
 

Do they argue that, or do they state it as fact? Why is NPR treating Palestinians as tendentious when it comes to basic human rights? One listener has written to say that Jews should not be assigned to cover this conflict. An inevitable, unfair response; but the reasonable question is, Is Abramson a Zionist? It’s time for the media to discuss the influence of this Jewish-nationalist ideology born amid the nationalisms of 19th century Europe in contemporary Jewish and American life.

66 Responses

  1. marc b.
    February 21, 2013, 11:02 am

    i thought the report was worse than potrayed here. if i remember correctly, the report commented on the use of video recording by israeli jews as an attempt to bring equity to reporting on the issue of the israeli-palestinian conflict more generally, as if the weight of the media was biased against israel. also, NPR reported allegations of palestinians burning their own olive trees and erroneously attributing the acts to israelis for propaganda purposes. (apparently none of the videos confirming this tactic were available to be provided to the NPR reporter at the time, the film being sent away to be developed most likely.)

  2. Susie Kneedler
    February 21, 2013, 11:03 am

    Larry Abramson blaming the camera reminds me of the Confederacy forbidding the people it enslaved from learning to read or write, as well as people of conscience from teaching them.

    So, Palestinian peaceful Resistance is impossible in Abramson’s and Melissa Block’s prejudiced eyes, when a mere Camera poses the threat of “a powerful weapon”:
    “MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: The camera has become a powerful weapon in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.”

    • Kathleen
      February 21, 2013, 11:45 am

      Yeah would he rather see the Palestinians carrying the weapons, American made tear gas canisters that the ILLEGAL Israeli settlers , illegal cops and illegal IDF are using against the Palestinians. If I were a Palestinian and had the racism, violence directed towards me that they have had…it would take everything I have to stay non violent. And most of us know that is the case for most people.

  3. Kathleen
    February 21, 2013, 11:15 am

    “5 Broken Cameras” is unabashedly pro-Palestinian, an indictment of Israel’s settlement policy that never examines the settlers’ claims or the security force’s point of view. Settlers groups often complain they are the victims of misinformation from both Israeli and foreign left-wing groups which have trained a battalion of Palestinians in how to document alleged abuse. After years of bad press, settlers are getting organized.

    ANAV SILVERMAN: To some degree, the conflict – especially in Judea and Samaria – has become a camera war.

    ABRAMSON: Anav Silverman works with the Tazpit News Agency. The group tries to document the other side of the story by collecting video which they say shows abuse of soldiers and settlers by Palestinians. Every day here, in the Israeli media, there are reports of small clashes over land. Often, those claims focus on symbolically potent olive trees.”

    Abramson “the other side of the story” hooey. This false equivalency bull. Abramson never uses the word ILLEGAL in the whole report. That the Settlers and the settlements are ILLEGAL what they are doing is ILLEGAL and the Israeli military on internationally recognized Palestinian land is ILLEGAL. Never even mentions that the land legally belongs to the Palestinians. The IDF, Israel, the illegal settlers more afraid of cameras because the truth is getting out. How does that go a picture is worth a thousand words. The other side of the story is that Israel, the illegal settlers are wrong…terribly wrong

    • seafoid
      February 21, 2013, 3:58 pm

      “an indictment of Israel’s settlement policy that never examines the settlers’ claims or the security force’s point of view. ”

      They don’t have a leg to stand on. There is no valid settler pov that allows them to be there. They are party to a war crime. And it doesn’t matter how many kids they have.

      And the “IDF” is a joke.

      You cannae polish a turd, not even in US media.

  4. Citizen
    February 21, 2013, 11:27 am

    Yeah, its not Big Bird that wastes American taxpayer dollars and deploys them to support Israel’s Zionist atrocities, on-going daily.

  5. pabelmont
    February 21, 2013, 11:29 am

    “In this lasting conflict, cameras are an important witness to suffering, but they also may be the cause of some of it.” They are the “cause” only if Israel (or low-level IOF soldiers, or armed settler thugs) make(s) the choice to respond to the presence of cameras with violence, imprisonment, torture, etc.

    The “they made me do it” (they, with their feelthy cameras, made me do it) makes sense as a “defense” ONLY if what was done (the “it” that was done by me) was a crime, disreputable, etc. They made me commit a crime, it wasn’t my fault, etc., has several parts: [1] They acted, [2] I subsequently did a crime , [3] I did the crime BECAUSE they acted, and [4] I was justified to do the crime because of their act (here pointing a camera at me).

    It is clear nonsense (even if israel has made photographing soldiers illegal — has it?) but NPR should not get away with parroting this drivel without analyzing the parts.

  6. seafoid
    February 21, 2013, 11:29 am

    “In this lasting conflict, cameras are an important witness to suffering, but they also may be the cause of some of it.”

    “Lasting conflict” always cracks me up. Only because nobody in the US today has the gonads to stand up to the lobby.
    And blaming Palestinians isn’t new – remember Golda Meir’s quip about Palestinians being to blame for Israel having to kill their children.

    No different to reactionaries blaming rape on women who bring it on themselves . Meanwhile Israel is supposed to be the light unto the nations etc

  7. Woody Tanaka
    February 21, 2013, 11:37 am

    “A journalist questioning the rightness of journalism! When that journalism is a means of documenting oppression, no less.”

    This is the Beinart effect* in other terms; if journalistic principles would result in harm to Israel, this person abandons thos principles, demonstrating that he never had them to begin with.

    * When pressed, Beinart admitted he would abandon his supposed liberalism to advance his Zionism.

  8. Kathleen
    February 21, 2013, 11:41 am

    Phil “One listener has written to say that Jews should not be assigned to cover this conflict. An inevitable, unfair response; but the reasonable question is, Is Abramson a Zionist”

    I don’t think that is an unfair question at all. Most Jews as of just the last few years would have referred to themselves as “Zionist” “liberal Zionist” like you Phil. And like the majority of “liberal Zionist” they supported Israel no matter what either through their silence or undeniable support of Israel. The question Phil is not just for NPR’s Larry Abramson but for all of the reporters and host of shows at NPR who have and are disproportionately Jewish. Although we are well aware that non Jews can be blind supporters of Israel also. Things have shifted a bit over the years on that program but not much. NPR has been accused of “pervasive cronyism.” in their hiring and who rises up the ladder.

    I believe Linda Gradstein was given the boot for her inability to report accurately about the conflict and her public bias. Via lots of pressure from the public. NPR received lots of complaints about her biased reporting

    • Philip Weiss
      February 21, 2013, 11:54 am

      I never called myself a liberal Zionist. Have never been one
      and “most”? That’s collective punishment

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 21, 2013, 12:34 pm

        100% correct, Philip. It might be inevitable that poeple might conclude it, but saying that someone can’t cover this dispute simple because of his or her ancestry or religion is wrong. Period.

      • Kathleen
        February 21, 2013, 4:19 pm

        Look this bias on NPR and “pervasive cronyism” as well as their inability to report in a truly fair way about the I/P conflict has been talked about for decades.

        I talked with former employee Juan Williams about this “pervasive cronyism” at NPR in depth when he spoke at Ohio University years ago. I asked him whether it was true what I had read about an outside research group being called into NPR to investigate these claims and that their report has never been released to the public. He said that from what he understood that what I had read was true

        “Numerous NPR employees have pressed charges against NPR for “pervasive cronyism” when it comes to who is appointed to host of shows, reporters, upper level positions.

        link to current.org
        Laid-off v.p. files latest NPR bias suit

        Originally published in Current, Oct. 6, 1997
        By Jacqueline Conciatore

        Rattley-LewisSandra Rattley-Lewis, onetime v.p. for cultural programming at NPR, has filed a suit alleging race discrimination and retaliation by the network. Her action brings to six the number of known discrimination suits filed against NPR in recent years.

        Bernabei & Katz, the plaintiff’s law firm in all but one of the six cases, says there are two more EEO complaints heading for litigation.

        As a former v.p., Rattley-Lewis is the highest-ranking employee known to have brought a discrimination suit against NPR. Her complaint, filed Sept. 26 in Superior Court for the District of Columbia, says NPR demoted her while advancing less qualified whites, and failed to give her the same promotions and

      • Dan Crowther
        February 21, 2013, 1:52 pm

        You’ve never called yourself a liberal zionist, but yet you use “we” in your latest Chuck Schumer article when discussing the treatment of jews in the soviet union. To the extent that you don’t believe in the necessity of a jewish state, you’re not a zionist – but you’re definitely a zionist in spirit, you over and over make clear your belief in a racial definition of jewishness. So, to me, your dog don’t hunt.

        Yossi Gurvitz would call you a Zionist, and so would Akiva Orr (who was barely mentioned here while alive) in fact, non identity politicking jews seem to be the MOST unwelcomed people around here…. Where was Orr, where is Shir Hever? Where are any jews who disagree with the “Phil Weiss Project To Re-hab Zionists”?

      • tokyobk
        February 21, 2013, 3:11 pm

        This comment makes no sense unless you believe that “Jew” and “Zionist” are synonyms.

        Zionism means the belief that a Jewish State in historic Palestine fulfills Jewish destiny and should be preserved as the homeland of the Jews.

        As for identity, there are plenty of people (in fact increasing) who consider themselves Muslim and Catholic as part of a transglobal, transhistorical identity that is neither a race or ethnicity and not specifically religious either.

        Where does Phil assert a racial Jewish identity (not saying he has not I just havenot seen it and would surprise me).

      • Cliff
        February 21, 2013, 3:31 pm

        Is that what Phil wants?

        Personally, no Zionist is going to be convinced to stop being a Zionist. I think people have it in them to be good and moral.

        There isn’t a universal point where everyone breaks under the truth or humanization of ‘the Other.’

      • Kathleen
        February 21, 2013, 4:23 pm

        Tokybyk “Where does Phil assert a racial Jewish identity”

        link to gilad.co.uk
        “I pressed Weiss further , asking him, “this ‘us-ness’ does it really extend beyond family and friends? Do you, for instance, feel ‘us-ness’ with an Iraqi Jew?”, I wondered.

        ‘I think identity is multi-factorial,’ Weiss replied, ‘I feel American before I feel Jewish. I think that’s the achievement of my life, to have flipped those identities, and Jewish is second. I see Jewish as this great civilization that I am part of. That transcends borders, and it’s not Zionist. Zionism is like Shabbetai Tzvi, It’s a big chapter in a long story. Jews will survive this one too. Jews is: a sense of difference, yes, inevitably of elite identity, that’s part of Jewish history and one I struggle with. Jewish is a Story, a myth…’

        “inevitably of elite identity”

      • marc b.
        February 22, 2013, 8:28 am

        spot on, dan and kathleen. the only category that is elastic enough to include all the competing, contradictory ‘jewish’ identities is race. the problem for weiss, of course, is that the proposition that ‘the jews’ constitute a race is incompatible with his liberal bona fides, especially as he bleats on about his elite status. ‘elite’ and ‘race’ side by side. no, that simply won’t do.

      • sardelapasti
        February 22, 2013, 11:55 am

        marc b – ” ‘elite’ and ‘race’ side by side. no, that simply won’t do.”
        Still, what he describes there, if you put it together with his “my people” effusions here, seems to be a consciousness of the mythical character of any racial side to it. I mean that “being born to a Jewish woman” as the fully racial Zionist definition seems to give way, for Philip, before a concept of elective tribe (modern: clan) membership. Not that this makes nationalism any better or any more palatable.

      • Keith
        February 23, 2013, 8:32 pm

        DAN CROWTHER- “You’ve never called yourself a liberal zionist, but yet you use “we” in your latest Chuck Schumer article when discussing the treatment of jews in the soviet union.”

        I think that Phil could more accurately be called a tribal anti-Zionist. I am using the word “tribal” loosely to describe a generalized kinship and affinity with a specific group of people. One aspect of Jewishness which we haven’t discussed is this ability to feel familial affection towards specific others outside the boundaries of organizational affiliation, something which secular Gentiles seem to lack. As our business run society works to keep the population disorganized and atomized, Jewish “kinship” provides psychological benefits which many of us Gentiles would find appealing and which, I suspect, Phil is loath to abandon. Can’t say I blame him. I don’t know how much significance to attach to this. Phil seems to be aware of the privileges associated with Jewish kinship. As long as he tries to be inclusive, that is all we should ask.

      • Dan Crowther
        February 24, 2013, 7:28 am

        Well said Keith

      • marc b.
        February 24, 2013, 9:15 am

        nice nuance to the question, keith, but what is this?

        Phil seems to be aware of the privileges associated with Jewish kinship. As long as he tries to be inclusive, that is all we should ask.

        so how is it that weiss can be exclusive while simultaneously being inclusive? i don’t disagree that weiss is torn by his conflicting loyalties, even schizophrenic, but, for example, mr. brightside manages to mine superior qualities from even the dullest members of his clan. in other words, if they’re jewish, they are by definition ‘special’. he will always be a jewish-american, not an american jew, the order being of his own choosing.

      • Keith
        February 24, 2013, 3:50 pm

        MARC B- “…mr. brightside manages to mine superior qualities from even the dullest members of his clan.”

        I am unaware of Phil singing the praises of Jewish dullards. Perhaps an example or two would clear this up for me.

        “he will always be a jewish-american, not an american jew, the order being of his own choosing.”

        I find this a rather harsh appraisal.

        “so how is it that weiss can be exclusive while simultaneously being inclusive?”

        The same way we all deal with our own racist tendencies. As a white male, I have benefited from the privileges accruing to my skin color and middle class background. I also tend to associate with people like me: middle class, educated, white people. Yet, I like to think that I am aware of the disadvantages suffered by minorities and support efforts to provide essential affirmative action. The current shredding of the safety net and privatization of the commons will affect minorities more than me, yet I am adamantly opposed, more for their sake than for my own. What is happening really stinks. This is particularly true of the de-funding of education, a real kick in the teeth for the 99%. So while I’m not color blind, I am also aware that I have a lot more in common with Cynthia McKinney and Arundhati Roy than with Bill Gates or Chuck Hagel.

        When I first began commenting on Mondoweiss, I was practically accused of anti-Semitism by some other commenters for trying to discuss Jewish solidarity and Jewish power. Yet, Phil has led the way in making this important discussion respectable. The never ending struggle for power may well be the critical determinant in the course of events. Mondoweiss may be unique in the extent to which the website empowers the commenters and utilizes discussion as a means to explore issues, rather than simply deliver articles for consumption. Also, I think Phil may be somewhat unique in his willingness to tolerate personal criticism. He is wise to do so. And yeah, if he deserves criticism then he should be criticized, however, let us not hold him to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. We whites need to be mindful about how minorities might judge our behavior, along with the systemic racism we seem to willingly tolerate.

      • sardelapasti
        February 24, 2013, 5:45 pm

        Keith – “As long as he tries to be inclusive, that is all we should ask.”

        In the specific case of “Jewish” tribalism, there is one more thing to insist upon.The realization that the use of the word “Jewish” for his tribal loyalty (otherwise harmless) instead of the words defining what it really is (Ashkenazi-American), continues aiding and abetting the Zionists by reinforcing the moronic Zionist myth of a “nation” when the only binding element with the non-Ashkenazi is religion.

      • marc b.
        February 24, 2013, 6:50 pm

        keith, see his commentary on friedman and goldberg, for example, two dullards by any objective standard. he criticizes them, but finds them simultaneously astute and in error. and, yes, weiss does allow discussion of ‘jewish’ power, but his willingness to do so is equal parts anguish and self love. george trow put it best in his ‘within the context of no context’ when talking about privileged WASPs bemoaning their privilege back in the 60s, their critiques being a last gasp assertion of that privilege as they realized that a new era was upon them.

      • Keith
        February 25, 2013, 4:54 pm

        MARC B- “keith, see his commentary on friedman and goldberg, for example, two dullards by any objective standard.”

        Hmmm, this is becoming interesting. Your comment opens a door that I am going to walk through and see where it leads to. Since you didn’t provide a link, I cannot make specific reference to what Phil said, however, I can comment in general terms. Let us set Goldberg aside as I am not familiar with him at all. Friedman is a propagandist, but hardly a ‘dullard’ by any objective measure. Graduating summa cum laude from Brandeis, with a masters from Oxford, three Pulitzer prizes and several books is hardly the mark of a dullard. He is a highly skilled and effective molder of imperial mythology, a significant player in the manufacture of consent. The crap he spews forth isn’t the result of stupidity, and you underrate him if you think it is. His Pulitzers recognition of his ability to articulate elite propaganda convincingly.

        Marc, there are several factors at play here which you seem to be conflating and labeling Jewish tribalism. Yes, Phil, Friedman and Goldberg are all Jewish. In fact, much of the New York media is Jewish, hence, when Phil critiques a colleague, that person will frequently be Jewish. A fellow journalist or a fellow Jew? Friedman is usually described as a liberal, as is Weiss. A fellow liberal or a fellow Jew? Of course, Phil and Friedman disagree on Israel, however, do they agree on most other issues? Finally, what is probably most significant is the role of the mainstream media as an instrument of imperial propaganda. Would the MSM be significantly different if Jews were replaced by WASPs? I doubt it. Those advertising dollars are going to flow to those media which say what the elites want said. There are other factors as well as documented in Chomsky and Herman’s “Manufacturing Consent.”

        Then you need to consider the counterintuitive reality that I have less constraints on voicing an opinion on Mondoweiss than Phil does. Yup, I can say some pretty radical things on Mondoweiss with little to fear except ridicule. Phil, however, may one day have to answer to a prospective employer about his statements. Also, the funding of Mondoweiss itself. These are not insignificant factors. I sometimes wonder if Phil’s articles are narratives designed to elicit discussion, for others to say what would be impolitic for him to say. Just a thought. The reality is that Phil is a liberal, not a radical. The bottom line for me is that commenters should be more concerned with articulating their point of view rather than with focusing on Phil. On the other hand, for all I know he may find the criticism useful.

  9. Sycamores
    February 21, 2013, 11:49 am

    the problem is not having a zionist and their influence in the media, why? because they should express their views, freedom of speech cover by the first ammendent to the US constitution.
    the problem is ‘as alan dershowitz said ‘a lack of balance’.
    to be fair ten years ago we wouldn’t even be here talking about Palestine or zionism. it might take another ten years (hope not) before there will be a more balance mainstream media on the subject.
    and to give a little bit of credit to Mondoweiss they are doing their bit to promote some balance.

    • Kathleen
      February 21, 2013, 4:27 pm

      But having those so called “liberal zionist” views which have dominated NPR and other MSM outlets for decades is not democracy or in any way shape of form a fair and balanced media.

      • Sycamores
        February 22, 2013, 10:59 am

        In a democracy everybody has a right to be represented, including the jerks.
        quote from Chris Patten – the last Governor of British Hong Kong.

        unfortunate the ‘jerks’ have an unbalance representation of the media in their favor.
        highlighting the media failure to follow its own code of ethics is one way to readdress the problem.
        society of professional journalists – code of ethics
        link to infousa.state.gov

  10. Kathleen
    February 21, 2013, 11:53 am

    Saw the film last night so well done. At first I felt I was watching a documentary from the 50’s the lighting, the pace. Burnat draws you in with the filming of his family, his little son and other sons growing up in this world of violence and despair, his use of his camera’s, the blatant targeting of his camera’s by illegal settlers, IDF, close to taking him out for documenting the violence. The massive double standards as ILLEGAL Israeli settlers beat the living day lights out of Palestinians for trying to stop their ILLEGAL trailers from being placed on Palestinian land, the cement structures built by ILLEGAL settlers and Israeli law that states that once these cement structures are built they can not be destroyed. Yet when Palestinians try to do the very same thing placing trailers on their land, build cement structures the ILLEGAL settlers and ILLEGAL IDF come in and remove or destroy them. The whole situation is so infuriating that I would not be able to see straight let alone stay non violent. It would take everything I have to not want to retaliate against these massive and extremely cruel injustices. How about you?

    • yrn
      February 21, 2013, 1:58 pm

      The film was funded by Israeli (Yes Zionist) funds, for the Israeli Channel 8 and represents Israel.

      Any Idea why ????

      Just to show you all the freedom of speech, open society, open minded democracy in Israel.

      I would love to see a funded Palestinian movie once criticizing their corrupt non democratic government or Palestinian terrorists killing Israeli families..
      No chance !

      And surprise, that movie was not criticized in Israel and has been shown on channel 8 I guess 30 times.

      I bless Israel for that.

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 21, 2013, 3:10 pm

        No, yarn, you’re ignorant as all get out. The film was shown on Channel 8. It was not funded by Channel 8.

        Get your facts straight next time. (Oh, that’s right, facts don’t matter to people like you.)

        Nor does it “represent Israel.” Films only represent foreign countries in the Best Foreign Language film category. This film is nominated for Best Documentary. And, anyway, it is a film from Palestine Israel and France, given the nature of its production.

        Finally, Israel is included only because Guy Davidi was a co-director and having nothing to do with the state. And it is a shame that there are not more Israelis like Davidi and are so many of the uniformed filth that appear in the film.

      • yrn
        February 21, 2013, 6:32 pm

        I love it that people from nowhere know everything about my country.
        Ignorant is a compliment for you.
        The film Was funded by the Israel Film Fund (NIF), funded by the Ministry of Culture, and received additional funding Israeli franchise (Channel 8). And Cooper, an Israeli organization is also supported by the Ministry of Culture. Editing was done in Tel Aviv .

        This is a medal to the Israeli freedom of expression, speech and democracy.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 21, 2013, 7:53 pm

        i’m glad they funded the film and i am sure there are many good israelis who worked on it and supported that funding or it never would have been financially supported.

      • yrn
        February 22, 2013, 8:20 am

        Annie

        We usually don’t agree on many things as you are out of context…..
        But this movie is addressed for Israelis , that have an understanding of the context, that Israeli’s want to have an agreement and finish once and for all most issues and live in peace, that’s why we are not afraid or don’t hide the fact, that there is a problem to be solved, there are two sides that suffer from this situation and there will be a way, that both parties will come to a situation that everyone is going to be happy on his side.
        Most commenters here have a pre-requisite Agenda and a movie like that only works to push their predicted Agenda, that I don’t bother at all to debate, as I know their pre-requisite Agenda, it was there most of the Jewish History, only issue is, that those days, Israelis who have a state and a Nation , knows and are not effected by those views.

        Israel is a free society, everyone can express his issues and in case he dose not find the resources as in this point , he will always find someone in the Israeli society that will raise his voice to help him out, as at the end of the day, we know what’s happening, we know that the situation is bad for both sides and we want to solve it as we understand and the other side understand and only both sides will end this conflict, all other assumptions and ideas of foreigner are just good for passing away their time…… ,

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 22, 2013, 9:52 am

        yarn, you’re clearly the one who is ignorant. No one is disputing that there is israeli involvement in this production. The points were two-fold: First, that your statement regarding Channel 8 were nonsense. Even if that was a pre-sale, that’s all it was. If anyone shoudl be “blessed” it’s Noga Communications alone.

        Second, and most importantly, the fact that there are israelis who are good people involved with this project is great and its a shame there are fewer israelis like Davidi, but the place is lousy with the likes of you. Those good people were able to act in spite of the israeli government, not because of it.

        And, indeed, Davidi himself looked with disdain at the kind of cultural robbery you are attempting here, when he condemned “…Israelis who immediately appropriate the film for national pride or pride over the national arts, but obscure or completely omit the fact that it’s first and foremost also a Palestinian film.” So, no, all blessings and medals go to the Palestinians, who must endure the evil perpetrated upon them by you and your ilk.

        And one thing is inarguable with regard to this film, israel and “funding”: and that is that the IDF terrorists and goons who are the villains in this film (and villains in real life) were 100% funded by israel.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 22, 2013, 5:00 pm

        yrn, i understand your sentiments and completely agree some israelis want to have an agreement and finish once and for all it’s just a matter of how many and what kind of settlement, and how much access or what kind of access which groups of israeis may have.

        for example, sometimes i start my day (or end my night) reading haaretz and anyone doing that recently knows of the powerplays going on right now to form the new government. lotsof those people donot really want to have an agreement and finish once and for all or if they do their idea of finished once and for all means annexation and not budging on jerusaelm. so when you say “we” wrt israelis you just can’t speak for all of them.

      • Cliff
        February 21, 2013, 3:38 pm

        Yrn,

        You Zionists have monopolized the business of killing families. So no amount of Israeli funding, partial or full, whitewashes Zionism.

        And a Zionist tool blessing Israel as you have is superfluous.

        You bless Israel when a Palestinian child is sniped through the forehead. So cares of you bless Israel now?

        Your politics are repulsive. And your concern for democracy and freedom of speech is propaganda of the Brand Israel variety.

        If you extolled those virtues for real, you wouldn’t be a Zionist in the first place.

        To you, this documentary’s content is irrelevant. It’s simply the fact that Israel partially funded it so you spin it’s existence as a ‘testament’ to Israel’s blah blah.

        Israel is stealing the Palestinians land. That is the subject of the documentary. Israel imprisons and kills non-violent activists.

        And through all of that, you instead focus on the partial funding. Absolutely predictable Zionist dishonesty.

      • yrn
        February 21, 2013, 6:46 pm

        Cliff

        Show me One movie done on the Palestinian side that has to do, with criticizing their corrupt government, their dictatorship, or criticizing terror and killing Israeli families. no way !
        while the Israeli government, funds documentary as those, not just tolerating and giving them public, but encourage those movie makers to create them, as we are a free society, we accept their views,
        While you just take advantage to through your regular predicted agenda.

        I am proud that Israel funded that film, as it shows you guys, that we don’t hide issues which are problematic in our society, I am proud that every one can create a movie and express his views, Palestinian and Israelis, as for you.You are predicted.

        This is the biggest achievement for Israel if this movie will take the Oscar.

      • eljay
        February 21, 2013, 8:32 pm

        Show me One movie done on the Palestinian side that has to do, with criticizing their corrupt government, their dictatorship, or criticizing terror and killing Israeli families. no way !
        while the Israeli government, funds documentary as those, not just tolerating and giving them public, but encourage those movie makers to create them, as we are a free society, we accept their views,

        So, according to yrneee, when a government funds documentaries that are critical of it, all its acts of past and ON-GOING terrorism, ethnic cleansing, aggression, oppression, colonialism, expansionism, destruction, torture, murder and supremacism suddenly become irrelevant and excusable. Interesting.

        Well, someone had better tell the Palestinians to hop to it and crank out a couple of flicks so the world – and yrneee – can bless Palestine and issue a medal to “Palestinian freedom of expression, speech and democracy”.

      • eljay
        February 21, 2013, 11:43 pm

        >> Well, someone had better tell the Palestinians to hop to it and crank out a couple of flicks so the world – and yrneee – can bless Palestine and issue a medal to “Palestinian freedom of expression, speech and democracy”.

        Addendum: Despite any crimes Palestinians may have committed or continue to commit. (Mustn’t forget that bit.)

      • Cliff
        February 22, 2013, 1:27 pm

        Who cares if Israel partially funded this film.

        It doesn’t whitewash their crimes.

        This isn’t a MOVIE. It is a DOCUMENTARY.

        The IDF soldiers in the documentary aren’t pretending to kill Bassam or enforce colonial rule. They aren’t acting.

        You haven’t even refuted my comment.

        As I stated, you look past the content of the documentary and propagandize and spin it’s existence as a testament to Israeli democracy.

        You’re ****ing disgusting.

      • kma
        February 22, 2013, 5:50 pm

        yrn,

        fyi, Palestinians ARE Israelis and DO fund zionist propaganda. I’d say they pay the highest price for it! and I’m tickled that you suggest that Israeli funds must all be zionist.
        however, not only do Palestinians fund zionist movies, TV, and pieces like the NPR one, but they also fund the morons who spend their days putting up posts like yours on website comment sections like this one.
        your post is adorable, in fact, and I’m sure the manual on “how to respond to Five-Broken-Cameras” is a riot.

  11. RudyM
    February 21, 2013, 11:55 am

    “One listener has written to say that Jews should not be assigned to cover this conflict. An inevitable, unfair response. . .”

    How about a limit on the number of Jews covering it, is that fair enough? Given the tribal identification of even many Jews who aren’t necessarily consciously Zionist, wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution and not have coverage of this issue dominated by Jews? Why do my gentile tax dollars have to go to Jewish dominated coverage of things, since you brought this up?

    I realize there is an endless supply of non-Jews who would gladly toe the line on Zionism, so from that perspective it’s a bit futile to focus on Jewish vs. non-Jewish reporters.

    • bilal a
      February 21, 2013, 1:13 pm

      Ron Unz has documented systemic disrimination against Asians and White Gentiles in Ivy League admissions. If this is merely the unintentional result of one group’s ethnocentric career building networks, then you would expect to see the same results in other institutions subject to the same networking. And of course this is exactly what you see in major news organizations, NPR perhaps being the most discriminatory .

      Perhaps someone should organize an NPR lunch counter sit in, or bus boycott, or some more appropriate instituionally contexted demonstration to further desegregation at NPR.

      If NPR can’t bring itself to hire one Orthodox Christian or Muslim commentator, how about one Orthodox Non Zionist practioner of Torah Judaism (not another secular athiest ) , as some first step towards diversity? Mondoweiss might consider doing the same.

      • Kathleen
        February 21, 2013, 3:41 pm

        bingo

    • peeesss
      February 21, 2013, 2:10 pm

      “Camera’s ” causing suffering among the Palestinians. Unbelievable. Did Burnat’s “camera’s” cause the Nakba, the destruction of 531 villages, killing and removal of 800,000 thousand people from their ancestal homes. Has Burnat’s camera’s caused the continuous confiscation of Palestinian land since then, 1947-48, the settlements, assassinations, administrative “detention”, massacres, atrocities. hundreds of checkpoints. And ,of course, GAZA. Before Bornat was born the murderous, colonial project called Zionism was florishing. If only principled journalists were there with their camera’s to record the horror Zionism brought to Palestine.

      • seafoid
        February 22, 2013, 2:04 am

        Some were there. George Rodger of Magnum took a lot of interest in the refugees but Chim and Capa spun the Zionist line and the rest is history.

  12. David Doppler
    February 21, 2013, 12:59 pm

    I saw Argo last night. Money line: “if you’re going to sell a lie, get the press to do it for you.” All very good and heroic when you’re just deceiving Iranian Revolutionaries so that we can extract Americans from hiding at the Canadian embassy in Tehran. But when you’re advancing political views, and protecting powerful elites, as when the CIA engineered a coup to install the Shah as a puppet, when Israeli Zionists use a fake peace process to deprive Palestinians of their land and human rights, when AIPAC seeks to exercise a Likud Loyalty Litmus test on US political appointments, or when Larry Abramson seeks to blame the victims in Bil’in for the targeting of oppression at those who resist via a documentary having their land stolen, then you’re certainly not entitled to respect as a journalist, or public funding at NPR. Abramson is a political hack, whatever his ethnic or political persuasion. And, it is exceedingly tiresome and offensive for the issue to be perpetually sidetracked into ethnic and prejudicial slander.

    • Kathleen
      February 21, 2013, 3:54 pm

      Or fair and balanced. “the other side of the story” bull

      • seafoid
        February 22, 2013, 2:02 am

        Or the assumption that Zionism is decent and only resorts to violence in extremis.

  13. Chespirito
    February 21, 2013, 1:25 pm

    I hate NPR. There, I said it.

    • marc b.
      February 21, 2013, 2:45 pm

      it does bite doesn’t it. ‘radio lab’ great. ‘this american life’ great. ‘science friday’ great. the rest is only worthwhile for the guests, or as insight into a particularly pompous, myopic, condescending view of the world. weiss sums up the NPR collective neatly with his description of what’s-his-face as the ‘star baritone of NPR’ or words to that effect.

      • Donald
        February 21, 2013, 3:57 pm

        “‘radio lab’ great. ‘this american life’ great. ‘science friday’ great. the rest is only worthwhile for the guests, or as insight into a particularly pompous, myopic, condescending view of the world. ”

        Exactly. Anyone who doesn’t think self-described liberals can’t be pompous and insufferable just needs to listen to NPR. It’s like they float above everyone else, reporting in their richly self-satisfied voices about what are life and death issues to the people involved. I’ve never been tempted to give them a dime, even though there are some individual programs I enjoy.

  14. Kathleen
    February 21, 2013, 1:44 pm

    Phil last night (Wednesday) Chris Matthews did a piece on the alleged Friedman “joke”about Hagel accepting money from the “Friends of Hamas” Often ask him to have the Mondoweiss team on to demonstrate the new shift in the American Jewish community in regard to the I/P issue
    link to tv.msnbc.com

    I alerted his team to the piece over at Huff Po about the Friedman “joke” One never knows if an alert from an individual works but always worth it

    Kathleen-330322 commented yesterday

    #3

    comment author avatar

    Here you go Chris and Hardball team. You have to go with this one

    Front and center at Huff Po
    Right-Wing Media Reported Chuck Hagel Was ‘Friends With Hamas’… Based On Reporter’s Joke
    link to huffingtonpost.com
    1 reply.

    Reply

    Kathleen-330322 replied 21 hours ago

    #3.1

    comment author avatar

    Chris you and your team should think about doing a flow chart of FRiedman starting the rumor about Hagel accepting money from Hamas and the rumor made it all the way into a Senate meeting about Hagel’s nomination. You can bet this was not a mistake or a joke by Friedman. Flow chart of the rumor. Shine the light

  15. Philip Munger
    February 21, 2013, 1:57 pm

    Listened to Larry Abramson’s flawed report 2X this morning, while shaving, showering, ironing, etc. Not as bad as Shira Frankel’s October 2009 report on Jewish vigilante groups trying to discourage dating between Jewish young women and non-Jewish young men:

    link to npr.org

    I’m all for having Jewish reporters at NPR. How about Max Blumenthal or any of the dozens of reporters on this list:

    link to masada2000.org

  16. subconscious
    February 21, 2013, 2:51 pm

    Per Abramson’s argument, the Al Jazeera-dubbed “most hated man in Israel,” who is in no way of the same journalistic caliber as Abramson, also bares a large responsibility for Palestinian suffering:
    link to aljazeera.com

  17. Les
    February 21, 2013, 4:12 pm

    Be sure to click on the link in the above article and read the comments. You can be sure NPR won’t bother to pay attention to those comments.

  18. Kathleen
    February 21, 2013, 4:34 pm

    NPR
    Follow up: Will NPR come clean about Gradstein’s unethical cash payments?
    link to electronicintifada.net

    February 25, 2002

    Dear Mr. Dvorkin:

    We read your latest column NPR’s Middle East ‘Problem’ with great interest. The column deals with criticism of NPR’s Middle East coverage coming from a number of directions, including from The Electronic Intifada.

    You address the revelation that NPR’s Israel Correspondent Linda Gradstein has been accepting money from pro-Israeli groups — for years, in blatant violation of NPR’s policy regarding conflicts of interest — minimally and incompletely and only as one point in a laundry list of unrelated issues. This leaves serious questions unanswered.

    We are particularly disappointed that, as the advocate for NPR’s listeners, you failed to urge NPR’s management to confront this matter and to make the minimum public disclosures necessary to begin to repair the damage done to the credibility of NPR’s Middle East reporting. The revelations in our special report were published on our website at electronicIntifada.net on February 19th, which usually logs around 60,000 visits a month (currently around 80,000 since we published the report), and were also broadcast on more than 55 radio stations nationwide on February 22nd.

  19. dbroncos
    February 21, 2013, 4:49 pm

    Prohibiting Jews from reporting on Israel sets a dangerous precedent and its not neccessary. What’s needed above all else in the I/P debate is a vigorous challenge to the legitimacy of Zionisim. This discussion will change everything. Getting this disucssion past the gate keepers in the MSM is a big challenge, but barring Jews from covering I/P isn’t the answer.

  20. markpg
    February 21, 2013, 5:30 pm

    I am not Jewish, but I very strongly disagree with blanket arguments for excluding Jews from covering Israel/Palestine in the media. It would be racist, it would be unfair, it would be bad. It just happens that the fiercest critics of Israel policies are Jewish. They know the mindset of Israeli supremacists. They cannot be intimidated by cries of “anti-Semitism”. They are really leading the fight!

  21. DICKERSON3870
    February 21, 2013, 5:53 pm

    RE: The filmmaker is shot, beaten and imprisoned. His mother wails in fear. And his camera “caused” this suffering? Abramson should find work at Fox News, not NPR. ~ Thomas Antenucci

    MY COMMENT: Ouch, that smarts! Antenucci really knows how to deliver a body blow. Or is it more like a dropkick to the nads?

    Bobby Bare: “Dropkick Me Jesus” (Unedited Version) [VIDEO, 02:40] – link to youtube.com

    ● LIVE – Bobby Bare: Dropkick Me Jesus (Through the Goalposts of Life) [VIDEO, 03:21] – link to youtube.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      February 22, 2013, 5:36 pm

      P.S. RE: An appalling report on the great film “5 Broken Cameras,” by Larry Abramson of NPR last night, suggested that filmmaker Emad Burnat had brought violence upon his tiny occupied village, Bil’in, by seeking to document the oppression. ~ Weiss

      SEE: Israeli soldiers say it’s “intolerable” they can’t kill Palestinians more freely due to cameras, “rules”, by Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada 12/10/12

      [EXCERPT] . . . One soldier admits that the presence of cameras – presumably in the hands of Palestinian and other videographers – inhibits the soldiers from being even more abusive:
      T. says the cameras on the ground undermine the forces’ efforts. “A commander or an officer sees a camera and becomes a diplomat, calculating every rubber bullet, every step. It’s intolerable, we’re left utterly exposed. The cameras are our kryptonite.”

      SOURCE – link to electronicintifada.net

  22. edwardm
    February 22, 2013, 7:39 am

    Not long after Cast Lead, NPR ran a story about the settlers – with lots of loveable chirpy buzzwords like “diverse” and “community” etc… Since then they have failed to be “supported by listeners like me.”

  23. Rusty Pipes
    February 22, 2013, 11:37 am

    I am reminded of the stories about the white supremacists who were gathered to meet the bus of freedom riders. Before they even went to attack the riders getting off the bus, they attacked the cameramen for the national press. What white northerners would have accepted the claim that the supremacists’ violence against the freedom riders was invited by the presence of cameras at the bus stop?

  24. Diane Shammas
    February 25, 2013, 9:18 pm

    Hey, I was in a demo in Beit Jala after returning from Gaza in 2010. The IDF shot teargas cannisters that set off a fire on the olive trees. Mazin and our group called the Palestinian fire department , This is nonsense that the Palestinians set their most sacred olive trees on fire.

Leave a Reply