’60 Minutes’ report on ‘Iron Dome’ tonight likely to carry giant payload of hasbara

Israel/Palestine
on 13 Comments

Tonight on “60 Minutes,” Bob Simon will air a piece on Iron Dome, the missile-interception technology Israel used so effectively last fall in its latest assault on Gaza. It certainly appears that the piece, “Israeli defense system changes game in Mideast,” will be Israel-centric, for instance by giving a platform to Ehud Barak, the man who oversaw the last assault on Gaza, which killed nearly 400 children.

Notice also that Hamas leader Ahmed Jabari is assassinated, per the CBS promotion below, in retaliation for rocket attacks; but in fact, Jabari was in the midst of negotiations with Israel, so who can say what Israel’s motive was. 

I predict that Bob Simon will not report on the Israeli missiles that were not stopped from hitting Gaza apartment buildings during the conflict of last November. The “game” didn’t change for Palestinians. 

This must make up for Simon’s earlier attack on the Israeli settlement program, “Time Running out for Two State Solution?” (that was four years ago; yes, time is always running out, but it never runs out in this game).

From the promotion at CBS (and thanks to Susie Kneedler):

A potentially game-changing missile defense system shot down 85 percent of the rockets fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip during a massive attack last November, says the Israeli Air Force. On Sunday’s 60 Minutes, Bob Simon reports on a system so sophisticated that its missiles can intercept rockets traveling 500 to 1,000 mph, some of which are only in the air for seven to 15 seconds. Simon’s story will be broadcast on Sunday, Feb. 17 at 7:00 p.m. ET/PT. 

Last November, Israel assassinated the military leader of Hamas in retaliation for the periodic rocket attacks launched from the Gaza Strip by Hamas and other militant groups. As the Israeli Air Force and Navy attacked Hamas leaders and rocket stockpiles, Hamas fired over 1,500 rockets at Israeli towns and cities. The Israelis say more fire was directed at southern Israel during those eight days in November than in all of Israel’s wars combined….

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

13 Responses

  1. Mondowise
    February 17, 2013, 6:35 pm

    nor will Bob likely report on how the izraeli kill mission in Gaza last November was instigated in the first place (at a time of calm with no rockets from Gaza) by….none other than….more of the same: izrael murdering innocent Palestinians.

  2. matt
    February 17, 2013, 7:01 pm

    Don’t forget Simon’s more recent report on Palestinian Christians.

    • kalithea
      February 17, 2013, 10:37 pm

      No doubt that report was meant to warn his Zionist friends: don’t bite the hand that feeds you! After all, the majority of Americans are Christian; and Zionists wouldn’t want to offend them, now would they? Uh, on second thought…they’re that stoopid.

  3. Avi_G.
    February 17, 2013, 7:12 pm

    Notice also that Hamas leader Ahmed Jabari is assassinated, per the CBS promotion below, in retaliation for rocket attacks; but in fact, Jabari was in the midst of negotiations with Israel, so who can say what Israel’s motive was.

    In assassinating Ja’bari, Israel’s motive was to adhere to a long-term strategy.

    Israel’s long-term strategy is devoid of permanent and just resolution to the conflict. As early as 1967, Israeli leaders made it publicly clear that they had no desire to keep Palestinians on the land.

    So today, a look at the occupied West Bank shows that Israel is not interested in living next-door to Palestinians. It wants them out and off the land. Within that scope is the existence of organized and effective Palestinian leadership. Compare and contrast Israel’s treatment of Hamas and Fatah and you will soon notice that there is no difference in Israel’s view of the two.

    That is to say that Palestinian leadership serves at the pleasure of Israel. And when that leadership does not abide by Israel’s demands, it is no longer of any use.

    In the 1970s and 1980s, Israel went around and assassinated various leaders of Palestinian organizations. It did so in the knowledge that Yaser Arafat was pliable. For example, while Israel was negotiating with Arafat behind closed doors and via an intermediary — Uri Avnery — it sent a team of murderers to Tunis in 1988 to assassinate Khalid al-Wazir, known by his nom de guerre as Abu Jihad.

    Israel claims that Abu Jihad had “blood on his hands”. But if he had “blood on his hands”, then so did Yaser Arafat. The difference was that Israel knew that controlling one Palestinian leader was far easier. It certainly did not want a Palestinian panel of military and strategic advisers who would give the Palestinian side any advantage. As an aside, that is the same reason why the U.S. and Britain, imperial powers that they are, prefer to empower and deal with dictators, not democracies.

    The same has happened with Hamas.

    For example, after Israel murdered Ja’bari, and after it murdered Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, suddenly Khaled Mish’al emerges and announces that he might lead Fatah. And then out of the blue, the Qatari Emir makes an historic visit to Gaza. What’s being cooked behind the scenes is a deal that would render the Palestinians, once again, impotent.

    This tactic of anointing and empowering one Sheikh, one Mukhtar, one leader, has long been a colonial and imperial tactic.

    Israel used this tactic successfully since 1948. It empowered a local figure as a leader and then commenced to ‘cut deals’ with that leader by granting him incentives and assuring him of his importance. In turn, that leader would turn around and sell Israel thousands of acres of land for a symbolic fee.

    So what was the motive behind assassinating Ja’bari?

    Think of it as a way of thinning out the proverbial herd. It’s quite likely that Ja’bari had no personal ambitions of becoming a prominent leader. So his Achilles Heel — whatever it may have been — was of no use for Israel.

  4. Avi_G.
    February 17, 2013, 7:25 pm

    Speaking with some Israeli military rep — I missed the name — Bob Simon has just said:

    And the casualties [without Iron Dome] on either side would have been greater [during Pillar of Cloud].

    Still, the Israeli responds in agreement, but with hesitation, knowing it’s a false claim: “Yes.”

  5. W.Jones
    February 17, 2013, 10:24 pm

    Soon before the 2011 bombing of Gaza, one of the main Israeli point men for negotiations, named Baskin I think, reported to Israeli News that neither side wanted a fight. He was lamenting strongly not long afterwards that he was proven wrong by one of them with the assassination of his Gazan negotiating counterpart, al-Jabari and the conflict that followed.

  6. kalithea
    February 17, 2013, 10:27 pm

    4 years ago when Bob Simon reported on the West Bank situation and used the dreaded word – Apartheid, I commented on the Huffington Post that it was surprising to hear that word uttered in mainstream prime time (even tho’ Jimmy Carter bravely uttered it first) and that the credibility of the “borrowed” observation by Simon was reinforced by the fact that he was Jewish. Well! You’d think I had cursed all Jews on the planet by the way I was attacked there and labelled an Anti-Semite merely for pointing out that FACT. Here’s the thing: I cared and care squat and hit right back! Yesterday and today, I refuse to be intimidated by Zionist mosquitos and I bite back just as hard. Those who attacked me should know: I’m a rebel and a scrapper and I don’t pull punches. Because against Zionism, that’s all that works! But I’m sure they’ve gathered that by now…hehe. My “attackers” came and went under different guises/monikers and despite many wishing and trying to get me banned, and wishing me cancer and worse, yes, that’s how evil they are; much to their chagrin, I still have the same moniker there since 2009 and my words still cut like a knife and it makes them batshet crazy…which thoroughly amuses me! But I don’t comment there much anymore as I got thoroughly bored with that site that has changed dramatically, but part of the reason is that I don’t find it necessary, AND THAT’S A A BLESSING. I’ve noticed a change since then. Zionists have lost their “mojo”, not that they ever had it to begin with! As Zionism is attacked back and exposed, their squawking sounds more and more hollow. And those gnats that used to viciously attack me look like pathetic desperadoes whose lies fizzle out before take-off, so I don’t need to use my swatter quite so often, lol.

    Back to the present. Here’s how I’d describe Bob Simon’s report this time: ANEMIC. He put Barak on the hot seat once, 2/3rds of the way in, and had him exactly where he needed to be, and then he just lets him off the hook! What a bozo moment! He was literally saying: Why should Americans fork out their tax dollars for you when you’re sabotaging the “peace” plan with endless expansion? This was a good question (for a change). But Barak replies that he can’t get into it because it’s the height of “election” season. Soooooooooo??? That’s an answer??? And Simon lets it go! It was the only part of his piece that had any muscle to it; the rest of it was weighed down with hasbara flab. So the powerful moment where jaws are supposed to drop just shrivels up and gets interrupted with more Zionist flab. He allows Barak to babble that the issue (ie. the Iron Dome’s cost, who paid for it and the quid pro quo Americans should expect from the funds they dish out to Israel) is not relevant to the Iron Dome. It’s definitely not Barak who’s left twisting in the wind by Simon’s journalism, i.e. inept journalism! Simon concludes the loser is the prospect of “peace”. The loser is not the sham prospect (as he really means PROCESS, which he knows has become a dirty word!) as Simon goes on to conclude. The loser is the American public dishing out BILLIONS and getting squat back just like Palestinians who have put their arms down to get SAME…squat back! Because Zionism is the biggest con job in the world and Simon’s in the Zionist toolbox.

    The only kind of journalism that can defeat Zionism is the one that has teeth and bite and not this toothless reporting we witnessed tonight!

    To defeat Zionism you have to be a pit bull with a bone, never letting go. Ya can’t send a lapdog into the Zionist pen and expect great journalism to emerge. At the first sign of weakness, they’ll tear you to shreds and spit you out!

  7. bilal a
    February 17, 2013, 11:47 pm

    Hasbara is less effective now, even Ynet is talking of overseas fear of the IDF:

    “Even the once widely-accepted service in the Israeli army is now being reconsidered.

    Richard, Brenda’s neighbor, remembers the glorious return of one soldier. His name was Ben Zygier.

    “He came back with the aura of a hero,” he said. “But now his family doesn’t dare show their faces around the community out of remorse and shame,” he said. ”

    link to ynetnews.com

    • CloakAndDagger
      February 18, 2013, 1:29 am

      @ bilal a

      Thanks for the link to a very interesting article. The following excerpt was remarkable:

      Antony Loewenstein, founder of the Independent Australian Jewish Voices organization, said in an interview to Australian radio program “AM” that the big question is the Jewish community’s promotion of bias in favor of Israel.

      Loewenstein cited the community’s pressure on young Jews to be involved with Israel, visit the country and enlist in the IDF, which according to him, should not be tolerated by Australia.

      The Mossad’s actions are not considered controversial by the Jewish community, Loewenstein said, and if an Australian Jew is involved in actions of this sort, it will not be seen, as it should, as an ethical or legal problem.

      Lowewenstein’s urgings may already be realized: Some of Melbourne’s Jews have already declared that they would avoid going to Israel, and deter their children from visiting, as well.

      “There’s no way I’ll let my kids fly to Israel now,” clarifies Brenda. “I’ll definitely not encourage them to do so.”

      Even the once widely-accepted service in the Israeli army is now being reconsidered.

      We need a Lowenstein here to urge American jews to publicly disavow Israel, although, were it to happen, it would get scant coverage in the MSM, unlike Australia. If it did happen, the abundant supply of sayanim would shut down quickly, and with it, the effectiveness of Mossad spies in the US.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 18, 2013, 2:20 am

        here’s the Lowenstein (audio+transcript)interview, i listened to it the other morning and tweetd it (that’s how i can find it ;)

        link to abc.net.au

  8. American
    February 18, 2013, 10:09 am

    Let Israel and the zionist keep on, let them subvert, meddle and use other countries and people in every possible way.
    I want their hubris and disrespect of the world to become even more outrageous.
    Cause if the final outrage is bad enough and US survives it, chances are the ‘opposite and equal reaction’ will mean a 180 degree U turn back to basics with a vengence.
    So go ahead Israel ..let it roll…show us your stuff.

    Good old George 1779

    ”So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a
    variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the
    illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common
    interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays
    the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter
    without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions
    to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to
    injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what
    ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a
    disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are
    withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who
    devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice
    the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with
    popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation,
    a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public
    good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or
    infatuation.

    ”Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe
    me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly
    awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of
    the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be
    useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very
    influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive
    partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause
    those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil
    and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may
    resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and
    odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the
    people, to surrender their interests. ”

    • CloakAndDagger
      February 18, 2013, 6:49 pm

      Good old George 1779

      One of my favorite speeches of all time. The whole concept of avoiding “tangling alliances” became the hallmark of the Ron Paul movement – and the veracity of that assertion is so evident today.

  9. Les
    February 18, 2013, 12:14 pm

    On Fair’s latest Counterspin podcast there is a discussion of CBS’s promise to do Israel/Palestine during the course of a visit, the coverage of Palestinians was virtually nil and then limited to what is seen from Israelis.

    Is is really news to anyone that our media is the lever by which the Israel Lobby turns the wishes of the government of Israel into US policy?

    link to fair.org

Leave a Reply