Obama’s heckler asked about Rachel Corrie, not Jonathan Pollard

Israel/Palestine
on 53 Comments

Dana Milbank’s latest Washington Post column on Obama’s trip mentions that heckler during the Thursday speech:

“Even a heckler demanding the release of Jonathan Pollard, a spy for Israel, didn’t interfere with Obama’s friendly spirit. “I have to say, we actually arranged for that because it made me feel at home,” he told the crowd.

The claim apparently originated in a White House press pool report which we also propagated:

There was a heckler about 15 minutes into remarks. Man standing to Obama’s left back near center press platform began shouting in Hebrew. A reliable Hebrew speaker seated near pool says the shouting was about Pollard. We presume calling for his release. Pool couldn’t see what happened to the heckler. “This is part of the lively debate that we talked about,” Obama said after pausing for the interruption. The crowd seemed to boo the heckler then began applauding. Eventually most in the audience rose to their feet, giving the president a standing ovation. The friendly response seemed to be unanimous or nearly so.

Linah Alsaafin reported at EI:

Twenty-five-year-old Rabeea Eid, a student activist and member of the National Democratic Assembly, had heard and had enough. He stood up in the middle of Obama’s speech and called him out on three issues that summarized the flaccid nature and flagrant inefficacy of Obama’s visit to occupied Palestine.

“Did you really come here for peace or to give Israel more weapons to kill and destroy the Palestinian people? Did you happen to see the apartheid wall on your way here?”

“There are Palestinians sitting in this hall. This state should be for all of its citizens, not a Jewish state only.”

“Who killed Rachel Corrie? Rachel Corrie was killed by your money and weapons!”

The Washington Post has itself corrected the error. “Obama heckled in Jerusalem,” by Rachel Weiner:

The man was shouting in Hebrew. He later identified himself as Rabeea Eid, an Arab-Israeli student activist from Haifa University. He questioned whether President Obama really supported peace and asked about the death of Rachel Corrie, an American activist who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza in 2003. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Eid called Obama’s speech “extremist and Zionist.”

I am told that Wolf Blitzer propagated the Pollard error. Not sure if he’s corrected it. (Blitzer also picked Georgetown to win everything in the NCAAs; Florida Gulf Coast, a 15-seed, spoiled that prediction last night)
 
Milbank also wrote of Obama’s demands on this trip: “It was a tacit admission of failure, yet everybody seemed happier with the scaled-back aspirations.”
 
Does Dana seriously believe Palestinians were happier with “scaled-back aspirations” that leave occupation in place?
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

53 Responses

  1. Donald
    March 23, 2013, 12:24 pm

    “It was a tacit admission of failure, yet everybody seemed happier with the scaled-back aspirations.”

    Does Dana seriously believe Palestinians were happier with “scaled-back aspirations” that leave occupation in place?”

    “Everybody” means “everybody that matters”.

    • piotr
      March 23, 2013, 2:00 pm

      Allegedly, around 1935 a gossip column reported “In August there was nobody in New York city”. Which could be absolutely correct from the point of view of that column, and Milbank would probably agree as well.

  2. Citizen
    March 23, 2013, 12:34 pm

    Phil, Fox news and Imus In The Morning also erroneously mentioned the heckler was railing against Obama’s lack of a Pollard pardon. On your own website here, before you took up this breaking news today, regular commenters had already stated the heckler spoke of Obama’s failure to address the Palestinian misery, ending up with his question to Obama about Rachel Corrie. But I am glad regular commenters here are often ahead of you. I suggest you read them more quickly as part of your agenda. They are just people without any power base at all, but they are quick keen on issues your blog addresses.

    • Philip Weiss
      March 23, 2013, 12:38 pm

      Thanks Citizen; acknowledged.

    • broadside
      March 24, 2013, 11:33 am

      Just read McClatchy’s story on the “heckler.” This is how it read:

      ‘Midway through the speech, Obama was interrupted by a heckler who yelled out, “Do you really come here for peace, or to give Israel more weapons to kill and destroy the Palestinian people? . . . There are Palestinians in this room. This state must be for all its citizens, not the state of the Jewish people.”’

      Interesting ellipsis, no? Rachel Corrie, eliminated again. Whatever the American media can do to whitewash Israel’s crimes, it will do. Even when those crimes are committed against us.

      link to mcclatchydc.com

  3. German Lefty
    March 23, 2013, 12:39 pm

    Linah’s article is great. I really like her way of writing. Read this:
    “Of course, Obama didn’t see the apartheid wall on his way from Ramallah to Jerusalem, he was too busy reveling in orgasmic pleasure at Israel’s innovative technology (with bases set up on occupied lands), its vibrant ancient history, and the mighty brave ‘Israeli Defense Forces’ (who by the way arrested 30 schoolchildren on Wednesday in the old city of Hebron.)”

  4. MK_Ultra
    March 23, 2013, 12:44 pm

    The guy turns more despicable and sinister by the moment.

    Obama makes fun of heckler asking “who killed Rachel Corrie?”

    link to intifada-palestine.com

    “Who killed Rachel Corrie? Rachel Corrie was killed by your money and weapons!”

    Not a word

    What the Zionist-owned corporate media doesn’t dare say:

    Protester Heckles Obama over Israeli Killings, Rachel Corrie Death

    President Obama gave a key address to Israeli students in Jerusalem on Thursday, where he was interrupted by a heckler. The protester was an Arab-Israeli student named Rabiyah Aid. He told the Israeli newspaper Ynet he had called out to Obama: “Have you really come to promote the peace process or to provide Israel with more weapons to kill the Palestinian people? On your way here did you see the [West Bank] fence or the killer of Rachel Corrie?” Rachel Corrie was the U.S. student crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza on March 16, 2003, while attempting to block the demolition of a Palestinian home.

    link to democracynow.org

    • susan1
      March 23, 2013, 5:18 pm

      Obama didn’t “make fun of the heckler” . Obama said the shouted remark by the heckler illustrated ” part of the lively debate we all talked about ” and a little later Obama commented that the heckler made him feel at home. Look at the snippet of video accompanying the link you printed. To say Obama’s comments are “sinister” is plain silly. Even sillier is your assertion that the media is “Zionist owned”. You hide between a conspiratorial view because you are unable to confront the simple possibility that most people in America simply do not care about Rachel Corrie or either the Palestinians or even Israel. In any case, if the American, western media are so biased, why have they devoted SO much attention in their (mostly favourable) and extensive coverage of the so- called “Arab Spring”? If there was a great groundswell of sympathy for Rachel Corrie the media would reflect that.

      • MK_Ultra
        March 23, 2013, 10:24 pm

        Oh, Susie, here’s a little something on conspiracies:

        By labeling an explanation of events “conspiracy theory,” evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events “conspiracy theory” means, in effect, “We don’t like you, and no one should listen to your explanation.”

        In earlier eras other pejorative labels, such as “heresy,” “witchery,” and “communism” also worked like this. The charge of “conspiracy theory” is not so severe as these other labels, but in its way is many times worse. Heresy, witchcraft, and communism at least retain some sense of potency. They designate ideas to be feared. “Conspiracy theory” implies that the ideas and their advocates are simple-minded or insane.

        I like this one too:

        As used by the corporate media, “conspiracy theorist” is a derogatory label exclusively intended to dismiss any and all who challenge “official reality.” It is applied not only to those who present evidence in support of a theory which challenges official reality but even to those who feel it appropriate to seek an investigation to test whether there is empirical data that supports the official reality.

        Anyone who challenges official reality is a “conspiracy theorist.” Conspiracy theorists are “mentally deranged.”

        Pretty silly stuff, eh? Please, feel free to pick the one like best.

      • RudyM
        March 23, 2013, 10:49 pm

        If the (Zionist owned, or at least largely so) corporate media pounded the Rachel Corrie story into people’s heads; if they frequently showed the full clip of Rachel Corrie’s famous childhood speech juxtaposed with footage of her death; if the rest of their coverage went into some detail about the suffering Palestinians experience on an ongoing basis; and if Hollywood routinely turned out new movies, focused on the suffering of specific individuals, about the Zionist’s terrorist attacks on villages in the 1940s, or the Israeli killing of “infiltrators” just coming to look once again at their own land in the 1950s, I think their might be a groundswell of interest in Rachel Corrie, or at least the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

        • susan1
          March 24, 2013, 1:09 am

          There is a perfectly good reason why your fantasy about every conceivable media outlet in the known universe focusing on Rachel corrie or the wrongs done to the Palestinians in an effort to “pound it into the publics heads” will never happen. Its because the overwhelming majority of folks in America and Europe could care less. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of ( mostly) out and out fanatics (like you , perhaps) bother about Rachel Corrie. You really need to get over this paranoid belief that the media is out to withhold information from people. It seems to be an idea fostered by the likes of Noam Chomsky (being one of the more savoury peddler of conspiratorial bullshit- the less savoury being the likes of kevin McDonald and david duke ) with his silly Manufacturing Consent thesis which in the case of Iraq, ( for example) he would no doubt contend that the peoples failure to rise up and organise mass protests against the invasion of Iraq was because the media was deliberately concealing information from them. Not so, people in America were simply apathetic or they actively welcomed the invasion of Iraq . The multi- media world that we live in now did not exist 30-40 odd years ago, but in contrast to the pathetic lack of opposition to the Iraq war by the populace of both America , Britain and Europe, people, particularly in America , when they decided they had had enough of war in Vietnam actually did get off their backsides and protested, and bravely too, and played a crucial role in ending the Vietnam war.Again, as I pointed out there was no mass media in those days as we know it now. The point is that people are apathetic today, and the reasons have little too do with what you call a ” Zionist owned” media. Believing one can explain the world through conspiracies is politics for fools , for people who don’t really understand how politics or the world works.

        • gamal
          March 24, 2013, 3:23 am

          This is a beautiful piece S1, you conceal any meaning in the subtext and present data that would tend to undermine your main thesis as the body of your essay.
          but you are aware of the origin of the phrase “manufacturing consent”, “the manufacture of consent” in the original, considering its source and the work in which appears, Chomsky is quoting someone, would tend to indicate areas you need to account for in defense of your thesis, which is: that apathy is a natural condition of Americans, requiring no explanation or cause, and that the media operates according to the logic of shit happens,

          so you posit 30/40 years ago no media, even though they lost the vietnam war, according to some, everyone off their arse and war stopped, they did not exist as they do today, granted, so all encompassing modern hypermedia and apathy, suddenly it was there, but then you quote, apparently unknowingly, Walter Lippman, and all this with a petulant condescending callousness that implies that the killing of a young woman, in appalling circumstances and for no purpose other than intimidation, is a matter that would only concern fanatics, and with a flick of your hair you stalk from the room, the Noam Chomsky is David Duke semi-syllogism doesnt really work either.

          you and the other apologists and propagandists are not interested, not interested in what you are commenting on otherwise how could you exhibit such ignorance? Not just about “facts” but modes of understanding, about how to think, you do seem, in the above piece, to have achieved the singular feat of combining the voice of Mrs Malaprop with that of Friedrich Hayek.

        • Annie Robbins
          March 24, 2013, 7:18 am

          he would no doubt contend that the peoples failure to rise up and organise mass protests against the invasion of Iraq was because the media was deliberately concealing information from them.

          do you live under a rock? link to en.wikipedia.org

          Protests against the Iraq War

          Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters, including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[2]

          According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[3]

          In the United States, even though pro-war demonstrators have been quoted as referring to anti-war protests as a “vocal minority”,[4] Gallup Polls updated September 14, 2007 state, “Since the summer of 2005, opponents of the war have tended to outnumber supporters. A majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake.”[5]

        • Cliff
          March 24, 2013, 8:24 am

          @susan

          What an ignorant comment. And no paragraph breaks either!

          Its because the overwhelming majority of folks in America and Europe could care less.

          The ‘American people’ is an abstraction. We know that most Americans would like an even-handed approach to the conflict. Most do not support Israel. Most support neither.

          The percentage of Americans who support Israel is usually 30 % or so – and the question is usually asked in the vein of ‘as opposed to the Palestinians.’

          It would be useful to know who supports Israel. What their religious background is and how does that figure into their support. Are they Jews? Christians? Atheists? If they are Jews, are they Orthodox? If they are Christians, are they fundamentalists?

          The support for Israel is not deep. It just appears that way because of the Israel Lobby, the MiC, and the media which is unquestionable ‘Zionist-owned’. Zionist-owned in the sense of kin networks and ethno-religious gatekeepers at various levels of the hierarchy. That doesn’t mean it’s an absolute. But I’d say it’s more or less true. As an institution, the MSM is Zionist no doubt.

          The opposition to the Iraq War was unprecedented. It began much earlier than the opposition to the Vietnam War. The opposition to the Vietnam War, popular protests, began very late. By then the American government had already achieved it’s strategic goals.

          And the reason the anti-war movement then was noisier was because more American troops had died and because we had a draft. There are more reasons too.

          I think the opposition to the Iraq War faded quickly because we’ve become a hyper-consumerist society and apathy goes along with that.

          We make some noise but we can’t sustain it like in the past. People are not willing to go full-time.

          So don’t confuse apathy with pro-Israel sentiment. And please use paragraph breaks.

          It’s just too much to take, to read through your awful grammar and run-on sentences.

        • Sumud
          March 24, 2013, 10:49 am

          The point is that people are apathetic today, and the reasons have little too do with what you call a ” Zionist owned” media. Believing one can explain the world through conspiracies is politics for fools , for people who don’t really understand how politics or the world works.

          Typically myopic susan1.

          Outside the US media bubble people are very well informed on Israel/Palestine, and public opinion around the world of Israel is uniformly low, and sinking by the minute:

          Israel’s popularity sinks even lower in 2012, new BBC global survey confirms

          The better informed people are, the lower their opinion of Israel is – and the principle reason is that Israel’s history (according to zionists) is one fabrication after another. The hasbara house of cards topples oh so easily when a person actually stops to examine the issue.

          How would you account for the huge disparity between public opinion of Israel inside and outside of the US? Is everybody else just smarter that Americans, or are they better informed, and in a media environment not quite so hostile to honest reporting of Israeli atrocities.

          I vote for option 2:

          Off The Charts — American Media And The Palestinians – Documentary Video

        • amigo
          March 24, 2013, 11:27 am

          “but in contrast to the pathetic lack of opposition to the Iraq war by the populace of both America , Britain and Europe, people, particularly in America ,”Susan 1.

          Really Susan and what Media do you use to educate yourself.The Hasbara book of mythology.

          “Beginning in 2002, and continuing after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, large-scale protests against the Iraq War were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to occur simultaneously around the world. After the biggest series of demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet, the United States and worldwide public opinion.[1]

          These demonstrations against the war were mainly organized by anti-war organizations, many of whom had been formed in opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan. In some Arab countries demonstrations were organized by the state. Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters, including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[2]

          According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[3]

          In the United States, even though pro-war demonstrators have been quoted as referring to anti-war protests as a “vocal minority”,[4] Gallup Polls updated September 14, 2007 state, “Since the summer of 2005, opponents of the war have tended to outnumber supporters. A majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake.”[5]

          link to en.wikipedia.org

        • RudyM
          March 24, 2013, 11:31 am

          I think you are claiming a degree of independence for public opinion which is unrealistic. Why would the enormous apparatus of public relations and propaganda exist? You do agree that there is such a thing as public relations and propaganda, or do you think they are conspiracy theories? Once you admit that there are some people out to covertly influence other people’s opinion, it could be a slippery slope to the land of conspiracy theory. Better be careful.

          I admit, it’s natural enough for people to simply be more concerned with their own immediate lives (though even that is something which can be cultivated and encouraged by outside influences, to produce a more disengaged population).

          Nevertheless, opinions about foreign policy and complex economic issues (among others) don’t spring out of nowhere.

          (Don’t change the style of your posts. I don’t see what is so difficult to read about them.)

        • German Lefty
          March 24, 2013, 2:04 pm

          The overwhelming majority of folks in America and Europe could care less.

          You mean that they could NOT care less…
          Anyway, your assumption is NOT true, at least as far as Europeans are concerned.
          Look at this picture:
          Views of Israel’s influence, 2012
          link to jpost.com
          You can see that:
          65-74% of people in France, UK, Germany and Spain think that Israel has a NEGATIVE influence.
          Only 12-20% of people in France, UK, Germany and Spain think that Israel has a POSITIVE influence.
          Only 14-16% of people in France, UK, Germany and Spain are undecided or indifferent.

        • Taxi
          March 24, 2013, 2:25 pm

          I guess susan1 has never heard of Goebbels and his methodology.

        • Sumud
          March 24, 2013, 8:42 pm

          I guess susan1 has never heard of Goebbels and his methodology.

          That’s very generous Taxi. I’ll bet she has though.

      • Donald
        March 24, 2013, 12:40 am

        “In any case, if the American, western media are so biased, why have they devoted SO much attention in their (mostly favourable) and extensive coverage of the so- called “Arab Spring”?”

        The media likes a story about heroic Arabs rising up against a tyrannical Arab dictator. They even show some understanding and support when the rebels use violence, including suicide bombing.

        The media doesn’t treat violent or nonviolent resistance to Israel by Arabs with anything like the same kind of sympathy.

      • Joe Ed
        March 24, 2013, 8:38 am

        Obama was arrogant and dismissive.

        Of course the mainstream media is tremendously influenced by Zionism.

        When Americans hear about the story of Rachel Corrie (a story the mainstream media does its best to bury) they care quite a bit about it.

        The Zionists will disappear in a heartbeat when they lose control of the propaganda machine. And they know it

  5. Justpassingby
    March 23, 2013, 1:27 pm

    The fact that a majority booed this ‘heckler’ says alot about the views of the audience.

    • piotr
      March 23, 2013, 2:03 pm

      They could try to strangle of break the neck, some hecklers have it easy.

    • sardelapasti
      March 23, 2013, 2:05 pm

      Justpassingby : “that a majority booed this ‘heckler’”
      Well, duh! In a state founded on the explicit doctrine of enslaving a 15% quota of local population and getting rid of the rest (official Zionist program, final percentage defined in the late forties, check out the different Zionist Congresses!), filled with murderous riffraff whose livelihood depends on being accepted as Meisterrasse illegal immigrants (and unsure, deep down, of their Jewishness, whatever that is), what did you expect?

    • K Renner
      March 23, 2013, 2:32 pm

      If it had been a jewish person screeching about the snake Pollard, the audience probably would have given him (the heckler) a standing ovation.
      And then collectively bought him dinner for three months, or something.

    • kalithea
      March 23, 2013, 10:52 pm

      Yeah, cause in Zioland “liberals” are really “thought police” disguised as liberals and that crowd was putting on a show for the cameras until the heckler spoke up.

  6. Avi_G.
    March 23, 2013, 1:45 pm

    A reliable Hebrew speaker seated near pool says the shouting was about Pollard.

    This is good comic relief. The White House relies on an Israeli for information and goes on to describe him as a “reliable Hebrew speaker”.

    That’s the perverted relationship in a microcosm.

    Next thing you know, the US government will rely on Israeli sources for so-called intelligence.

    Oh wait, they already do that.

    What a farce.

    • tree
      March 23, 2013, 2:55 pm

      I suspect it wasn’t an Israeli who “interpreted” what was said. The term “reliable Hebrew speaker” seems a bit forced. It would be easier to say “an Israeli” if that was the case. I wonder if we will ever find out who this “reliable Hebrew speaker” was.

    • tear-stained uzi
      March 23, 2013, 4:59 pm

      Was the “reliable Hebrew speaker” former AIPACer, Woof Blister?

      • Taxi
        March 24, 2013, 2:28 pm

        Hahahaha thanks tear-stained for the Woof Blister!

  7. Les
    March 23, 2013, 2:10 pm

    ‘Does Dana seriously believe Palestinians were happier with “scaled-back aspirations” that leave occupation in place?’

    Obama is committed to making sure that Abbas make clear to the Palestinians that they must scale back their aspirations even more. The ever moving goal posts only grow wider and wider.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 23, 2013, 3:01 pm

      And of course the word ‘realistic’ will be used, complete with patronising finger wagging. As in, Palestinians have to be ‘realistic’ and understand that any form of justice for them is never going to happen and it’s unfair to give them false hope. Because that wouldn’t be ‘realistic’.

      • Taxi
        March 24, 2013, 4:53 pm

        Let the bastards go live in Gaza for a week and grok some Palestinian ‘realism’!

  8. Kate
    March 23, 2013, 4:27 pm

    link to thelede.blogs.nytimes.com

    March 22, 2013, 5:56 pm 8 Comments
    Arab Student Explains Why He Heckled Obama in Jerusalem
    By ROBERT MACKEY

  9. lysias
    March 23, 2013, 6:10 pm

    I wonder if there will be any consequences for what was probably Blitzer’s deliberate misrepresentation.

    Speaking of misrepresentation, the PBS News Hour last night, in discussing the rapprochement between Turkey and Israel, said “nine Turkish activists” were killed by the Israelis. No mention of the fact that one of those nine was a U.S. citizen.

  10. W.Jones
    March 23, 2013, 9:46 pm

    “It was a tacit admission of failure, yet everybody seemed happier with the scaled-back aspirations.”

    Does Dana seriously believe Palestinians were happier with “scaled-back aspirations”…

    Good point, Phil. Do their opinions matter when she thinks about what “everybody” thinks?

  11. kalithea
    March 23, 2013, 11:31 pm

    That (righteous) heckler in the rafters could have been you, but instead you’re trying to convince us that Obama “gets it”.

    And Blitzer, who also found something to clap about in Obama’s speech, was so europhoric at the time that he heard what he wanted to hear, and got it wrong, not unlike you…hearing what you wanted to hear.

  12. kalithea
    March 23, 2013, 11:53 pm

    I see 90% of my comments aren’t posting….

    “One voice can change a room, and if one voice can change a room, then it can change a city, and if it can change a city, it can change a state, and if it change a state, it can change a nation, and if it can change a nation, it can change the world. Your voice can change the world.”

    Remember that voice that kept interrupting him? Either Obama believed what he said then, and you gotta admit, he sure sounded convincing when he said it! He had EVEN me fooled, though not for long though, and I’m not easy to fool.

    Anyway, fforward to this heckler, ONE VOICE in that room and Obama jokes and flips him off. That’s the real Obama. That’s what he’s done to all of us.

    Speaking of ONE VOICE, are my other comments on their way or should I feel like the heckler in the room?

  13. amigo
    March 24, 2013, 11:11 am

    Gee, where did Susan1 disappear to.

    I wonder what branch of ” Scottish Friends of Israeli she belongs to..

    Loch Ness perhaps.

    • MK_Ultra
      March 24, 2013, 7:16 pm

      LOL! She was probably summoned by AIPAC, evidenced by the fact that she name-dropping she is clearly unfamiliar with (i.e. Noam Chumsky). :)

  14. eGuard
    March 24, 2013, 12:13 pm

    Philip Weiss: I am told that Wolf Blitzer propagated the Pollard error. Not sure if he’s corrected it.

    The heckling happened at 10.50 AM ET on March 21 (04.37 PM Israel time start of Obama’s 50 minute speech; then about 13 minutes in).

    Wolf Blitzer had the heckling as an item, at 02.12 PM ET (see the link). His video with the heckling moment has superimposed the text ”… Pollard …”. Then he showed a two minute Pollard documentary, also noting that he (Blitzer) had written a book about Pollard in 1989.

    At 06.44 PM ET the item was posted on the CNN site. There is no update or correction.

    link to situationroom.blogs.cnn.com

    • eGuard
      March 24, 2013, 10:57 pm

      So Wolf Blitzer wrote a book about Pollard: Territory of Lies: The Exclusive Story of Jonathan Jay Pollard: The American Who Spied on His Country for Israel and How He Was Betrayed (1989). “Betrayed” is good for a book title, but unclear is by whom Pollard was betrayed.

      Note that Pollard was recognised by Israel only in 1995. Blitzer was Jerusalem Post correspondent, and is a zionist (no further qualification needed).

      This wrote a commenter on Amazon, in 2009: The story Blitzer tells of Jonathan Jay Pollard is actually also Blitzer’s own story. The sympathy he shows for Pollard is a American zionist’s sympathy for other zionists who put the safety and well-being of the United States completely under the feet of Israel.
      link to amazon.com

  15. eGuard
    March 24, 2013, 12:30 pm

    Who published the mistake in the first place?

    Many reports say something like: A reliable Hebrew speaker near the press pool said that the heckler was shouting about Jonathan Pollard, … very soon after it hapened. So far for reliability. Now who in the press pool ran to the telex with it?

  16. jimmy
    March 24, 2013, 1:59 pm

    link to haaretz.com

    lets not lot let truth get n the way

    middle-east/jihadists-not-assad0

  17. German Lefty
    March 24, 2013, 2:12 pm

    English-language article that summarises the reaction of the German media to Obama’s speech:
    link to spiegel.de

    • American
      March 24, 2013, 3:21 pm

      forum.spiegel.de

      “World from Berlin: ‘Obama Has Adopted Netanyahu’s Course’

      Yep….cause you will never, never, never, never, ever, ever, ever, change Israel by recognizing them “more”, catering to them “more”, reassuring them ‘more’.
      All you will do by this is encourage them “more” in their demands on the US and in their occupation of Palestine.
      The Zionist demand to be worshiped as the most special and unique center of the universe, the demand that the world and the US comply with their every wish and whim is a bottomless pit—you can never fill it.
      And if they are denied any demands they take out that frustration on their Palestine whipping boy.

      Wait and see.

    • Taxi
      March 24, 2013, 4:42 pm

      A coupla nuggets from Lefty’s link:

      “The sad truth is that whenever Palestinian violence subsides, efforts to solve the conflict lose their urgency.”” (Die Tageszeitung)

      “Obama has completely adopted Netanyahu’s course.” ( Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)

  18. W.Jones
    March 25, 2013, 8:28 pm

    The heckling part in Obama’s speech runs like this:

    I like talking to young people is because no matter how great the challenges are, their idealism, their energy, their ambition always gives me hope.
    And I see the same spirit in the young people here today. I believe that you will shape our future. And given the ties between our countries, I believe your future is bound to ours. (Audience interruption.)

    [Heckler mentions the Wall, pluralism, and Rachel Corrie and the audience boos him]

    No, no — this is part of the lively debate that we talked about. This is good. You know, I have to say we actually arranged for that, because it made me feel at home. I wouldn’t feel comfortable if I didn’t have at least one heckler.

    So Obama was accepting the heckler. Presumably Obama had no idea what the person was saying, since Phil’s post mentions someone claiming it was in Hebrew. He was just OK with someone heckling him and didn’t think the audience should boo the person for that.

Leave a Reply