Rachel Maddow ignores the story in Israel/Palestine

Israel/Palestine
on 74 Comments

Rachel-Maddow-screengrab-600x345

On the last day of June, shortly after three Israeli teens had been kidnapped and Palestine was about to be attacked, Rachel Maddow ran a three-minute segment on the developing issues in the region. The short piece ran at the very end of her show, but she explained to her viewers that, “No one quite knows what daybreak is going to bring. We’ll keep you apprised of developments.”

This turned out to be something of an inaccurate statement, especially if she was not just referring to her network, MSNBC, but specifically referencing her program, The Rachel Maddow Show. Maddow hasn’t mentioned the conflict once since touching upon it fleetingly last month; not one word about dead Palestinian civilians, not even Muhammed Abu Khdeir, the boy who was burned to death by Israeli vigilantes. Since the ascent of Barack Obama, MSNBC has been defined by its liberal outlook and, like many American progressives, they frequently come up short when it comes to the subject of Israel. However, Maddow’s silence is especially glaring, even by the standards of MSNBC: Joy Reid did a segment on Tariq Abu Khdeir, the Florida teen, who was beaten by Israeli police while protesting his cousin’s murder and Chris Hayes analyzed the vast differential between civilian deaths.

During the first week of July, Maddow’s producer Steve Benen defended the show’s lack of coverage, to journalist Zaid Jilani, by citing that one three-minute clip and pointing out that the staff had been off for the holiday. However, their return from Independence Day celebrations yielded no new analysis of America’s favorite client state. Maddow spent the week covering things like John McCain confusing two people with similar names, the Republican National Convention “jinx”, and, of course, Chris Christie. These are all staples of the MSNBC experience, red meat for an Obama-supporting demographic that loves to hear about how silly the GOP is and the only people who don’t groan when Ed Schultz conducts audience polls like, “Are Republicans Angier than Two Black Labs Fighting Over a Toy?” Of course, one of the problems with trusting MSNBC, as some sort of viable alternative to other corporate media, is that this entire act is frequently trotted out in lieu of developing stories that transcend the contours of America’s rotted two-party system. So, viewers hear about Sarah Palin’s latest wacky observation rather than hear something about Chelsea Manning, Obama breaking a strike in Philly, or the demolition of Palestinian homes. During an appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher, Maddow defended MSNBC’s unrelenting coverage of The Christie Bridge Scandal, which has become the liberal Benghazi, explaining that she was, “totally obsessed with the Christie story, unapologetically.” When, the admittedly ridiculous, Charles Cooke suggested that, perhaps, MSNBC was focusing on the Governor of New Jersey so much because he might be the Republican presidential candidate in 2016, Maddow mocked the idea as if it was one of the craziest things she had ever heard.

Maddow’s snark is symbolic. Unlike Fox News, which seems to be stocked with a decent amount of snake oil salesmen, the MSNBC staff are some of the least cynical people working in media today. Last summer, I wrote a book on the politics of the network and, if there was one consistent element that popped up with each personality I researched, it was their unrelenting belief that they can work on any story they want. Rachel Maddow really thinks she has the freedom to cover anything in Israel if she wanted to and, if she did decide to cover it, she really believes she would produce something completely objective. People who think Maddow is being censored, on the subject of Israel, have probably never heard her pontificate on the subject. For a good crash-course on her perception of the conflict, watch her intro to a story from 2009:

 “You undoubtedly saw the headlines today: ‘Israel Launches Third Day of Attacks on Gaza,’ It is a tiny country, a Jewish state, right smack-dab in the middle of the Arab world. Surrounded on all sides by Arab nations, many of whom do not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Israel was, in a sense, conceived by war. A day after it declared its independence in May, 1948, it was attacked by five neighboring countries, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. What followed were decades of endless wars, fought on and near Israeli soil. A war with Egypt in 1956, another with Egypt and Jordan and Syria in 1967, another with Egypt and Syria in 1973, one with Lebanon in 1982, and so on, and so on, and so on. And on top of various military entanglements with its neighbors, Israel has also been embroiled in various uprisings within its own borders, among the Palestinian people. You all recall that famous handshake, at the White House, right? Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, and Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, agreeing to a Declaration of Principles, that said the Palestinians would be allowed to govern themselves in two areas, in the West Bank, a swath of land along Israel’s border with Jordan, and another tiny sliver of land along the Mediterranean Sea, that’s known as the Gaza Strip. The war being fought at this hour is in that little sliver of land, the Gaza Strip—it’s actually only about twice the size of Washington D.C.

Now, Israel withdrew from that land in 2005, but they still control the airspace, the territorial waters, and the Gaza-Israeli border. They’re currently [uh] enforcing an embargo on the Gaza Strip. Once the Palestinians [aggrieved some uh] achieved some degree of independence there, they did what independent people do—what the U.S. in fact, encouraged them to do. They held elections. And in those elections, the ruling nationalist party, Yassar Arafat’s party, Fatah, was defeated soundly by Hamas. Now, Fatah was no League of Women Voters, but say what you will about them, they did begrudgingly accept, theoretically, Israel’s right to exist. Hamas? Not so much. Not so much at all. The charter of Hamas explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. [Uh] Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by both the United States and the European Union. The net result of that election for Israel? Yet another neighbor bent on its complete destruction. Israel says rockets and mortars lobbed from Gaza into Israel killed nine Israeli civilians since the beginning of this year. A shaky ceasefire between Gaza and Israel that had been brokered by Egypt, that expired just a little more than a week ago. On Saturday then, there was a surprise, broad-daylight, coordinated air-assault, by the Israeli military, on what Israel says were military targets in Gaza.

Another round of headlines that scream, ‘Chaos in the Middle East,’ ‘Chaos in the Middle East Erupts Again.’ More than 300 dead on the Palestinian side in the last three days. Three confirmed dead so far on the Israeli side. Israel’s critics decry a ‘disproportionate response’ to the rocket fire, and emboldened Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei says that any Muslim who dies in defense of Gaza would be deemed a martyr. Israel’s defenders decry the Hamas government’s refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist and, of course, the unprovoked missile fire into southern Israel. Today, Israel’s United Nations ambassador said the goal of Israel’s military offensive is to, quote, ‘destroy completely’ Hamas.

Meanwhile, Palestinian rocket fire into Israel continued, despite the massive Israeli military attack. Now, as President Bush refuses to interrupt his last vacation as President to say anything about the Middle East tinderbox he purports to focus on so intently, is there hope that our new Presidential leadership in our country could make a difference there? Or [i-is] is this a situation in which there will always be violence which precludes a political solution—and without a political solution, we can’t ever have anything but more violence? Do you think that our kids, and their kids, and their kids will inexorably, inevitably, read the same headlines from the Middle East that we do now, and that we have for so many years? 

There are many problems with Maddow’s historical analysis here, but let’s start with, perhaps, the biggest one: she doesn’t mention the United States government’s connection to Israel, or the billions of dollars, in American taxpayer money, that Israel receives every year. Israel’s occupation of Palestine is, frequently, covered in mainstream media like it’s a confounding puzzle that can’t possibly be solved, but yanking United States support for it is, quite obviously, the logical starting point. The fact Maddow stays within this narrative is interesting, as she is the author a book critiquing America’s devotion to war, but don’t read Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power, expecting to hear much about Israel: the country is barely mentioned and the longest passage, has nothing to do with Palestine, but concerns its connection to Reagan’s Iran policy. 

mediumblue.cover_5.06x7.81_EC-e1394643725270-291x450Maddow also references the election of Hamas as if it occurred in a vacuum, with no mention of fact the organization was incubated by Israel or any comment regarding why their message resonated with the citizens of Palestine. She doesn’t point out that Hamas has, previously, sought to negotiate a state along the 1967 borders, contrary to popular belief. She doesn’t say anything about how Palestinian leadership has colluded with Israel and, continually, sold out the population. 

Maddow’s concluding speculation, that this conflict might rage on for future generations, presents the situation as nothing more than a senseless cycle of violence, perpetrated by both sides, possibly for the rest of our lives. But there’s nothing senseless about it, if one understands the basic principles of US hegemony or the idea of Zionism. Palestine isn’t a puzzle that can only be comprehended by policy experts, it’s a country being subjected to daily brutalities and an international scandal far more disturbing than any nefarious traffic jam in New Jersey.

About Michael Arria

Michael Arria is a journalist living in New York City. He's the author of "Medium Blue: The Politics of MSNBC."

Other posts by .


Posted In:

74 Responses

  1. Justpassingby
    July 16, 2014, 1:46 pm

    Not surprising. Tribal work at play.

    • jon s
      July 16, 2014, 2:33 pm

      What “tribe ” is that?
      Rachel Maddow is a Catholic.

      • amigo
        July 16, 2014, 3:24 pm

        “Rachel Maddow is a Catholic.” jon s

        Maybe she is a Christian Zionist Catholic.

      • tokyobk
        July 16, 2014, 7:47 pm

        Yeah, sure Amigo and MTd2 that’s exactly what JPB meant!

        I once saw another moron put Rush Limbaugh on a Jew Watch list.

      • Mooser
        July 16, 2014, 8:50 pm

        “I once saw another moron put Rush Limbaugh on a Jew Watch list.”

        He sure seems to be on the Zionist Watch list. All the Zionists here talk just like him. I bet they never miss a show.

      • MTd2
        July 16, 2014, 5:55 pm

        Christians can be of the “tribe”. Most Zionists are Christians and they believe that baptism goes beyond salvation, it also includes inherit the abrahamic covenant with YHWH, and even though not with the rights over the land (that’s for Jacob’s descendants), they have the duty to protect it.

        This is not necessarily explicit told or teached, but goes like this at least through social “inertia”, which also drags atheists. Also, there’s the thing over the doomsday or rapture happening at any day, so, it’s good to keep Israel as the exclusive land for Jews.

      • The JillyBeans
        July 16, 2014, 7:36 pm

        Her paternal line is Jewish, although her parents are Catholic. I guess that could lead her to feel some need to not criticize the mythical homeland.

        Personally I’ve not ever cared for her nor Bill Maher. I find both of their faux outrage for entertainment cheap.

      • Ellen
        July 17, 2014, 1:19 am

        She is just as revolting, ignorant and snarky as Maher. And their snark and “humor” is Zio propaganda in the guise of entertainment.

        Btw, @jons she may have been raised Catholic, but does not consider herself Catholic, so she is not, fwiw and as if it matters.

        She is just another shill and hack protecting her job.

      • Mooser
        July 17, 2014, 7:41 pm

        Wow, I didn’t know Zionists had progressed from judging the religiousness of Jews, to divining the religious feelings of non-Jews, too! Amazing, the powers Zionism gives one. Must be like being superman or something.

  2. chet
    July 16, 2014, 1:54 pm

    Wait for Chris Hayes to be fired.

    • Citizen
      July 16, 2014, 4:57 pm

      @ chet
      Yep. Look for Maddow to hang on. She’s the first big deal lesbian news host. He’s just a very bright and seemingly ethical white guy. No contest in contemporary US main media.

      • Mooser
        July 16, 2014, 8:53 pm

        “She’s the first big deal lesbian news host. “

        I never take those reports about celebrities seriously. They all try to make out like they are a bigger deal than they are. Publicity.

  3. James Canning
    July 16, 2014, 1:56 pm

    Rachel Maddow should remind her viewers that the foolish US Congress has consistently rewarded Israel for expanding its illegal settlements of Jews in the West Bank even though this guarantees endless war or near-war for Israel. At fantastic cost to the American taxpayers.

    • Citizen
      July 16, 2014, 4:59 pm

      @ James Canning
      Rachel has shown absolutely no evidence she’s even aware of the Israel Lobby. Yet she wrote her damning book on US foreign policy. This says a lot.

      • James Canning
        July 16, 2014, 6:35 pm

        Maddow seems very much aware of the Israel lobby, and the relationship of that Lobby to the careers of people in the news media etc etc.

      • Citizen
        July 16, 2014, 7:24 pm

        @ Canning
        Yep, she just doesn’t incorporate it in her analytical spiels on TV. It’s notable by its absence.

  4. Jenin Younes
    July 16, 2014, 2:03 pm

    I’ve been wondering about this. mention of Gaza was noticeably absent in both Bill Maher’s show and John Oliver’s new show, Last Week Tonight, last weekend. Bill Maher has in the past always said he is a “huge supporter” of Israel. I don’t know John Oliver’s position. I was speculating that the failure to mention it may be because they both are realizing the truth about Israel, but are unwilling to risk their funding/careers to mention it. Possibly the same goes for Maddow

    • chinese box
      July 16, 2014, 3:28 pm

      @Jenin

      Interesting insight about Maher, but Maddow has assiduously avoids dealing with I/P whenever possible, and when she has to cover it, she either takes Israel’s side or equivocates, so I believe it’s just business as usual from her.

    • Giles
      July 16, 2014, 4:51 pm

      Oliver seems to be in the Zionist camp based on the 2 times I watched his new show.

      I no longer watch.

      I remember a bit where Ms. Maddow placed a pic of Rand Paul way out in the Atlantic Ocean in crazyland due to his call to stop foreign aid (interpreted as foreign aid to Israel, or course).

    • Kay24
      July 16, 2014, 5:26 pm

      Bill Maher is anti Islam (although he reminds every one he is anti religion) and has shown that side of him many times. He is indeed an Israeli lover, and never condemns anything Israel does. Recently another Catholic, Jay Leno professed his love for Israel, said he took their side, and went all the way to the nazi land of the Middle East, to receive a medal. Not one journalist or celebrity has the guts to criticize the war criminals. Those who dare, have been made into an example, and attacked viciously by various mobsters posing as defense leagues.

      • Jenin Younes
        July 16, 2014, 5:44 pm

        Kay, bill maher’s comments about Israel and Islam are disgusting and made me almost stop watching his show several times. BUT I find many of his guests interesting and informative and I’m one of those older generation Y people who get way too much of their news from political comedy. And I know a lot of people don’t care for his humor, but I find him quite funny on most topics. At the same time, he is arrogant, not nearly as informed or smart as he thinks he is, and ridiculous about Israel and Islam

      • Kay24
        July 16, 2014, 6:48 pm

        I agree with all you say. I have been turned off by his consistent stabs at Muslims too, and once he had an expert on the subject, but tried to talk over him, not giving him a chance to talk. It was not nice at all. Like you, I enjoy the guests, and the debates that go on.
        If the current violence against the Palestinians was inflicted by say Iran, or another Islamic nation, Maher would take the opportunity to point out just how violent Muslims are, and that children are being massacred because of them.

      • The JillyBeans
        July 16, 2014, 7:39 pm

        I stopped watching him because he gets upset and changes the subject when an intelligent woman stumps him. He is an ignorant islamophobic chauvinist.

    • Robert Brooks
      July 16, 2014, 10:45 pm

      One of Maher’s parents is Jewish and he chose to adopt that identity openly. At least his bias is honest. Not so Maddow. She is one generation removed from Jewish ancestry but avoids that datum issue by avoiding the Israeli issue. I must confess that except for this issue, I find her analysis and rhetoric refreshing.

      • Mooser
        July 17, 2014, 7:47 pm

        “At least his bias is honest.”

        Isn’t it great! On any other subject an “honest bias” would be considered a contradiction in terms, but when it comes to Zionism, it’s fine. That is pretty damn funny. Concerning anything else, we might call it what it is, and that could be many things, but I doubt ‘an honest bias’ would be one of them.

  5. American
    July 16, 2014, 2:11 pm

    It is very tiring to try and pigeon hole non self identified as zionist network pundits re Israel as :
    1) spouting the nework producers bull on Israel
    2) spouting the whichever party they belong to bullshit line on Israel
    3) just stupid.
    4) or all of the above

  6. Kay24
    July 16, 2014, 2:23 pm

    Rachel Maddow, like her colleagues in the media, knows who pays her the big bucks, and who has the power to stop it.

    • Citizen
      July 16, 2014, 5:01 pm

      @ Kay24
      Yes, who has the power anywhere, including in the USA, is shown by the taboo speech dirth by the talking news heads.

    • ckg
      July 16, 2014, 8:28 pm

      Voltaire — ‘To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.’

  7. Denis
    July 16, 2014, 2:56 pm

    Well, don’t be too hard on her. Show her a little patience. As soon as one side or the other takes out a LGBT, she’ll really, really be all over it. Really.

    She sickens me almost as much as O’Reilly and his crowd of wing-nuts.

    But your timing was perfect, Michael. FAIR has just come out with some research that places Maddow at the absolute bottom of the barrel as far as diversity goes.

    The other disturbing, but hardly surprising, finding of the study that the most common category of guests for the cable pundits is other pundits. I think that’s called a “circle jerk.” It’s one of the many reasons so many Americans do not have cable, do not have a TV, and smoke way too much dope. You can get more and better information gazing at your belly-button than wasting your time with Maddow and her ilk.

    link to fair.org

    • Mooser
      July 16, 2014, 8:59 pm

      “It’s one of the many reasons so many Americans do not have cable, do not have a TV, and smoke way too much dope.”

      And those who don’t, what’s their excuse? The stuff isn’t gonna smoke itself. And we’ve got a State to run (Washington).

  8. seafoid
    July 16, 2014, 3:18 pm

    The MSM follow the hasbara line but will turn if it doesn’t match what people are thinking. And Israel has a hard time selling the carnage with the death toll well over 200.

    • Citizen
      July 16, 2014, 5:07 pm

      @ seafoid
      The current attack on objectivity is that anti-Semites are calling for equitable balance of deaths and maiming scores in Gaza and Israel. In short, why should Israelis be blamed for the lop-sided death/maiming in Gaza? Goldberg, on Imus In The Morning, voiced it this morning. Imus, of course, had nothing to say. What a dope he is.

    • Kay24
      July 16, 2014, 5:36 pm

      Well, seems the panicked plea from Dermer, asking for American Jews to do hasbara for them, is a sign that things are not that rosy in Tel Aviv.
      Israel is doing it to themselves, and blaming Khamas for everything does not fly, when the facts and pictures tell the truth.

  9. ckg
    July 16, 2014, 3:34 pm

    MJ Rosenberg once tweeted “Rachel Maddow is owned lock, stock and barrel by AIPAC”.

    I notice that Netroots Nation 2014, which begins today in Detroit, is also ignoring the Israel/Palestine topic. The conference for self-described progressive activists has 120 sessions and panels, but not a single session mentions I/P in its summary. From what I can tell only one session, a panel led by Matt Duss on Iran policy, discusses war, international human rights, or events happening outside U.S. borders. These self-described progressives seem self-absorbed with their own petty party politics.

    • Citizen
      July 16, 2014, 5:10 pm

      MJ Rosenberg’s latest article says Gaza is burning because of the impact of the likes of Sheldon Adelson on US politics. Maddow is ignoring this totally.

      • James Canning
        July 16, 2014, 6:37 pm

        Sheldon Adelson is unlikely to shed a tear if thousands of Palestinians are slaughtered.

      • Citizen
        July 16, 2014, 7:28 pm

        And either is Maddow, which is my point you apparently missed.

    • James Canning
      July 16, 2014, 6:50 pm

      Those who speak the truth about Israel/Palestine are subject to reprisals, perhaps?

      • Citizen
        July 16, 2014, 7:28 pm

        @ Canning
        Yeah, “perhaps.” It’s a done deal in case you haven’t quite noticed.

  10. Bob Feldman
    July 16, 2014, 3:42 pm

    Coincidentally, Maddow apparently received an award a few years ago from an Interfaith ngo on whose foundation board sits an apparent Obama White House adviser and Washington, D.C. reform rabbi named David Saperstein (who has apparently also been a guest on Maddow’s show and whose political influence within D.C. Beltway circles apparently approaches that of AIPAC). Phil apparently mentioned Saperstein’s special influence a few years ago, I think. And rabbi Saperstein’s wife is also apparently an executive or journalist in public broadcasting.

    • bilal a
      July 16, 2014, 6:32 pm

      Free Palestine? Not until we end the American occupation.

    • Philip Weiss
      July 17, 2014, 6:00 pm

      I believe she was an executive at NPR Bob. I agree that we’re dealing with a Democratic liberal Establishment network — Obama’s original funders, his “cabal”, the Chicago J Street women. How long before those liberal Zionists crack and some start calling for democracy? Then Rachel will be fullthroated for change.
      Excellent reporting by Arria here.

  11. xanadou
    July 16, 2014, 5:08 pm

    A long time ago, Maddow’s handlers had created the image of her as the reluctant outsider by hyping her irrelevant sexual identity which is often and inexplicably conflated with having a radical/progressive personality. A perception which Maddow rode to its very profitable conclusion. She is, no doubt, smart and articulate, and acutely aware who puts the butter on her daily bread.

    Maddow is ‘prompter reader. She is a competent, if limited, one-trick actress who pretends to be a journalist with a snarky demeanor that passes for her own attitude.

    Is she “owned” by anyone? Isn’t anyone who agrees to conditions attached to a paycheck? Rather, she comes across as someone who cares about nothing and no one. Not even the suckers whose eyeballs keep her in her job that will be hers until the majority of the public get tired of the boring same-old schtick. The latter is why I stopped tuning to her program a long time ago. If I want news about e.g., the ME, Israel, Palestine – I’ll go to MW, the Real News, Haaretz, AlJazeera, Electronic Intifada, and more; the reason I thank the Supreme Elements daily for the information freedom delivered via the internet.

    Speaking of the latter: the FCC has extended the public comments deadline until Friday re defining the internet as a public utility. Add your own POV or submit to the numbing tediousness of TV “news”:
    link to act.credoaction.com

    • German Lefty
      July 16, 2014, 6:03 pm

      A long time ago, Maddow’s handlers had created the image of her as the reluctant outsider by hyping her irrelevant sexual identity which is often and inexplicably conflated with having a radical/progressive personality. A perception which Maddow rode to its very profitable conclusion. She is, no doubt, smart and articulate, and acutely aware who puts the butter on her daily bread.

      Very well said! Exactly what I think!

    • Denis
      July 16, 2014, 8:42 pm

      xanadou: hyping her irrelevant sexual identity which is often and inexplicably conflated with having a radical/progressive personality

      That is so well put. It brings to mind the 2011 incident where she accused PolitiFact for calling her out for total BS. She claimed the criticism was because “if you squint, I look like a man.”

      See: “Maddow plays the butch card”

      link to logophere.com

      • German Lefty
        July 17, 2014, 4:41 am

        From the linked article:

        Maddow has played the butch-card for two reasons – and these are precisely the same reasons some Jews resort to the anti-Semitic card. The first is to divert attention away from your lame position or dishonest conduct by attributing a nefarious motivation to those who criticize your position or conduct. Maddow is wrong about what is going on in Wisconsin, she knows she is wrong, and we know she knows she is wrong. So the best she can do short of making a retraction is to use her very public self-confessed sexual orientation to mount an ad hominem attack against her critics. Her syllogism goes like this: A. People who call other people butch are cretins. B. People who disagree with me are calling me butch. C. Therefore, people who disagree with me are cretins.
        The second motivation for these sorts of tactics is that they are attempts to paint oneself as the victim and therefore garner some pathos. Poor Rachel, some nasty re-tweeter says she looks like a man. Well, the poor dear, I guess her comments about the Wisconsin crisis must be true.
        Similarly, for those wont to play the anti-Semitic card, the gambit is based on the unspoken (until now) theory that any criticism of any Jew victimizes that Jew because criticism of Jews is an obvious extension of the Holocaust.

        Totally correct!

    • traintosiberia
      July 17, 2014, 9:23 am

      Thank you . It really goes to the heart of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of hapless Americans .
      It seems Ameticans have been given choices between two set of identical corpses , but one of the two wears Santa Clause ‘s red color. The children and grown up decide now who to choose.

  12. seafoid
    July 16, 2014, 5:14 pm

    Charles Keating was the head of the Lincoln S&L that went to the wall in the great Savings and loan meltdown of the early 90s. One of Lincoln’s mottos was
    link to ft.com

    “Always remember, the weak, meek and ignorant are always good sales targets.”

    This as been amended by Zionism to
    “Always remember, the weak, meek and children are always good IDF targets”

    • Citizen
      July 16, 2014, 7:01 pm

      @ seafoid
      Yeah, the Zionists sure have a lot of commenters across the internet these days on all the social media platforms. They are all over the place, saying Israsel is a poor little country only defending itself against HAMAS, the front for the anti-Semitic world arrayed against poor widdle Israel, the lone Jewish insurance policy state in the wide world of anti-Semitic goys.

  13. RepresentativePress
    July 16, 2014, 5:16 pm

    Maddow has suppressed the main motive for the 9/11 attack which was anger at US support of Israel so what she is doing now doesn’t surprise me.

    • James Canning
      July 16, 2014, 6:39 pm

      Isn’t there a conspiracy of silence on this point, in US news media?

      • Citizen
        July 16, 2014, 7:03 pm

        Yep. Few Americans ever know the 9/11 Commission stated the main reason 9/11 was motivated, even in the diluted form it gave to the public.

    • Pixel
      July 17, 2014, 11:55 am

      dig deeper

  14. Dan Crowther
    July 16, 2014, 5:50 pm

    Here’s a clip of Chomsky making the same point about unwitting self censorship:

  15. German Lefty
    July 16, 2014, 6:01 pm

    There is a 2010 Citizen Radio interview with Rachel Maddow in which she talks about her coverage of the I-P conflict: link to wearecitizenradio.com
    (minute 47)
    Rachel stated that things are tense at MSNBC whenever someone choses to cover the issue. There were “external forces” that put pressure on her when covering the story. However, it was “not censorship from the corporate overlord”. Rachel was insistent that she has total creative control. Nevertheless, there are worries about the ratings.
    Note: According to the hosts, parts of the recorded interview got lost. That’s why they summarise what Rachel said. However, I would have found her exact statements much more interesting. My guess is that the audio didn’t actually get lost. Perhaps Rachel got panicky after the interview and asked the hosts not to publish her exact words.

  16. German Lefty
    July 16, 2014, 6:17 pm

    I just posted a link to this article on the Maddow Blog. Let’s see if they have the guts to address the topic on air.
    By the way, Michael Arria’s book sounds quite interesting. I consider buying it.

  17. James Canning
    July 16, 2014, 6:32 pm

    Fascinating.

  18. Kay24
    July 16, 2014, 6:50 pm

    I also notice that Chris Mathews, who has taken a few junkets to naziland ME, never mentions this conflict, which again shows loyalty to the mother ship.

    • Citizen
      July 16, 2014, 7:30 pm

      Mathews long ago exchanged the Pope for AIPAC. He’s a full blown US traitor, court Goy.

    • Bumblebye
      July 16, 2014, 7:50 pm

      Replying to your comment about Sisi on the four boys thread here (my computer doesn’t like it, and messages me that internet explorer has to close :( . )
      Sisi is zionists wet dream – esp Caroline Glick (!) – his mother was Jewish, her brother Mossad.

      • Kay24
        July 17, 2014, 8:32 am

        I read an email that was being forwarded about this too. I was wondering why his opponents in Egypt did not bring out these facts, if it were true.
        He certainly sleeps to be sleeping with Israel considering that mysterious phone call he had with Bibi, according to Haaretz.

  19. traintosiberia
    July 16, 2014, 11:02 pm

    “The students making the posts will not reveal online that they are funded by the Israeli government, according to correspondence about the plan revealed in the Haaretz newspaper.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, which will oversee the programme, confirmed its launch and wrote that its aim was to “strengthen Israeli public diplomacy and make it fit the changes in the means of information consumption”.

    The government’s hand is to be invisible to the foreign audiences. Daniel Seaman, the official who has been planning the effort, wrote in a letter on 5 August to a body authorising government projects that “the idea requires not making the role of the state stand out and therefore it is necessary to adhere to great involvement of the students themselves, without political linkage or affiliation”.

    According to the plan, students are to be organised into units at each university, with a chief co-ordinator who receives a full scholarship, three desk co-ordinators for language, graphics and research who receive lesser scholarships and students termed “activists” who will receive a “minimal

    The officials said the students would stress Israeli democratic values, freedom of religion and pluralism.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca. 16th July 2014

    At least she is not supplying Israeli version or getting paid upfront by Netanyahu .link to globalresearch.ca

  20. Marnie
    July 17, 2014, 12:21 am

    I have been very disappointed by her, I thought she had integrity. I watch to see what her top story is going to be and if it isn’t Gaza then I cut it off. Thankfully Chris Hayes has shown he isn’t completely unaware of the news coming out of Gaza/Israel and had a segment about the 4 boys killed while playing on the beach yesterday, which gave me a glimmer of hope, which was pretty much extinguished by the time they got to what was Washington’s response to the latest massacre which sounded basically if Hamas had accepted agreements to the ceasefire, this wouldn’t have happened, blah, blah, freaking blah.

  21. Taxi
    July 17, 2014, 12:44 am

    Seems to me that some nazis stealthily escaped the Dresden bombing, came to the USA, changed their surnames and got themselves respectable jobs in the mainstream media.

    Someone should alert the ADL!

  22. maruf82
    July 17, 2014, 4:41 am

    I thought she was a principled journalist. When it comes to Israel, why is there such hypocrisy and double-standard?

  23. German Lefty
    July 17, 2014, 4:46 am

    The Rachel Maddow Show did a segment on the I-P conflict yesterday. However, Steve Kornacki is in for Rachel this week.
    Rachel Maddow 07/16/14
    White House moves to calm Israel/Gaza strife
    Anne Gearan, diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Post, talks with Steve Kornacki about White House steps to encourage an end to deadly fighting between Israel and Palestinians in the Gaza strip.
    link to msnbc.com

  24. Carioca
    July 17, 2014, 9:55 am

    Just FYI —

    Rachel Maddow’s longtime girlfriend, Susan (an artist), is Jewish and a committed zionist.

    • German Lefty
      July 17, 2014, 12:44 pm

      I knew that Rachel’s girlfriend is Susan Mikula. But how do you know she’s Jewish and a Zionist? Did you meet her? Did she tell you? I can’t find anything online.

  25. nelle
    July 17, 2014, 10:07 am

    Excellent story by Michael Arria. I have long fumed at Maddow for her ignorant, US/Israel-compliant views about the Jewish state and its subject population. Maddow, of course, never uses the term “subject population;” that would suppose too much knowledge. I, too, am sick to death of the endless bridge saga, and completely agree with Arria: when what Ilan Pappe calls “slow genocide” is taking place in Gaza and the West Bank has been reduced to fragmentation and enclosure of Palestinian land to allow for the expansion of Jewish settlements, it is beyond obscene for a reputable “liberal” TV show to exclude any coverage that does not parrot Israel’s “hasbara” (propaganda.) And this is NOT a “tribal conflict.” This is a colonial war, waged by a colonial power backed by the greatest power in the world, the US, to expand Israel’s borders and its settlements without restraint. See Zeev Maoz’s DEFENDING THE HOLY LAND, which meticulously details Israel’s wars all of which, says the author, a former Israeli defense specialist, have been wars of aggression. The current attack on a helpless, caged population blockaded for the past 8 years and kept “on a diet,” as one Israeli official gleefully put it around 2008, is preemptive, prohibited under international law, hence a war crime. People like me, who have followed and written about Israel’s depredations for 35 years and more, look on in anguish and despair. See also Norwegian surgeon Mads Gilbert’s excellent book about his work at Al-Shifa hospital during “Operation Cast Lead,” of which the current assault is a repeat. Gilbert is now in Gaza, helping the victims.

  26. MSeveral
    July 17, 2014, 10:25 am

    She is a wasted talent. Every night, after dinner, I scroll through the news networks. Usually, I spend about 5 seconds watching her. For a bright and intelligent women, her stories are frivolous, her mannerisms are screechy. Part of her problem, is she simply doesn’t know much about foreign policy. But she seems to be attracted to the fringes, absurdities of politics. And it is not just the I-P issue she doesn’t cover. She hardly covered the Affordable Care Act successes. Despite her feminist credentials, she comes across as a sterotypic frivolous “girl”, plucked from the 1950s. If you want to see someone who knows about foreign policy on MSNBC, watch Andrea Mitchell. She was also in tears as she reported on the four Palestinians children who were killed yesterday.

  27. German Lefty
    July 17, 2014, 12:46 pm

    @ MSeveral
    Watch Andrea Mitchell. She was also in tears as she reported on the four Palestinians children who were killed yesterday.

    Really? That’s hard to believe. Isn’t she the “Zionist botox lady”?

  28. ThorsteinVeblen2012
    July 17, 2014, 4:42 pm

    I haven’t seen anything on the conflict on “Mother Jones” either

Leave a Reply