Max Boot has perfect propaganda on murdering medic– but Jeffrey Goldberg is silent

US Politics
on 30 Comments

In the midst of a crisis in Israel in which leaders have warned of growing fascism, and even echoes of Nazism, the difficult burden on its propagandists here is to assure Americans that everything in Israel is fine. And Max Boot in Commentary shows exactly how it’s done. His piece in Commentary is the best hasbara, or propaganda, yet published on the crisis.

Readers can walk away from Boot’s article believing everything about Israel they have before now. That in spite of what even the New York Times has told them is disturbing (in one piece anyway), there is no new threatening reality they have to contend with, it is all explainable.

Let’s look at what Boot wrote.

The article is titled “Leave Warfighting to the Pros,” and Boot begins by summarizing the situation in an honest manner. He even tells us that in the incident that precipitated the crisis, on March 24, an Israeli medic “calmly” shot a “helpless” Palestinian. Boot doesn’t use manipulative words like “terrorist.”

Just the facts and no propaganda for 3 paragraphs. An impressive feat for a propagandist. Ask Eli Lake how difficult it is to write even one or two impartial sentences.

But after three paragraphs Boot makes up for lost time.

The comparisons to Nazi Germany are, to put it mildly, far-fetched; indeed, the very fact that senior generals are strongly condemning not only [medic] Azariah’s actions but also those of his political defenders suggests that Israel remains a vibrant democracy where human rights are respected in a way that is true nowhere else in the region. But what’s interesting here is that, in Israel, it is the soldiers who are the most committed to upholding the laws of war, whereas many politicians and civilians shrug their shoulders and think that all is fair in love and war.

Boot says, I bring you good news, dear readers, from the land of Zion. The first lesson of the Murdering Medic story is that here is more proof that Israel once again in 2016 deserves the “most moral army in the world” designation. But what’s “interesting” is that it’s soldiers who are “most committed” to upholding the “laws of war.”

Of course, Boot means that certain IDF generals, such as Yair Golan, who look down from above, with horror, at the IDF’s people’s army, seem committed to the rule of law. But Israeli society exhibits no such concern. The murdering medic’s whole unit is on his side (as Akiva Eldar explained to Peace Now). These soldiers don’t seem so committed to upholding the rule of law as Golan is. We also cannot really trust old testament warrior colonel (since promoted) Ofer Winter with upholding the rule of law. The commanding officer of the elite Givati Brigade, Winter had this order read to his troops as they were about to attack Gaza in July 2014.

“History has chosen us to spearhead the fight against the terrorist Gazan enemy who curses, vilifies and abominates Israel’s God.”

If I were a Palestinian, I would dread being captured by someone like Colonel Ofer Winter.

But what about the “fascist” villains in the Israeli story? What’s the politicians’ excuse? All Max Boot chooses to say is that they “shrug their shoulders” and say “all’s fair in love and war.” Is that what these politicians’ defense is going to be if they end up in the Hague? Are they going to say all we did was “shrug our shoulders,” we were just “bystanders.” And argue that “all’s fair in love and war?”

Boot finds it best to take us far from the subject. He wants to go down memory lane and give us a history lecture.

He moves the story to the United States and tells us the story of US Army Lt William Calley, who led the My Lai massacre in 1968, in which hundreds of Vietnamese villagers died.

Calley received an appropriate punishment from a military court: life imprisonment and hard labor at Fort Leavenworth.
But many Americans were outraged by the verdict. Among the more vociferous protesters were Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter and Alabama Governor George Wallace. Carter asked Georgians to drive with their headlights on for a week in protest. The White House reported telegrams running 100 to 1 in favor of leniency and one poll showed that 79 percent disagreed with the verdict. Reacting to the outcry, President Nixon moved Calley to house arrest….

“The disparity between the way soldiers and civilians view war crimes,” Boot tells us, is “a complex and interesting question.”

So that is exactly where he is taking our story. That is why an analysis of Israel’s political crisis ends up under the “military” rubric in Commentary rather than under “Israel.”

The armies of modern liberal democracies have nothing in common with the Mongol or Hun hordes that would inflict any atrocity imaginable. Self-restraint, obedience to orders…

Boot has skillfully taken his concerned reader away from Israel/Nazi comparisons to googling William Calley and Genghis Khan.

But he’s not done yet!

It’s too bad that so many civilians don’t get it, which accounts for why you have presidential candidate Donald Trump calling on the U.S. armed forces to commit war crimes such as killing the relatives of terrorists, using torture as punishment, and bombing indiscriminately. By contrast 42 retired generals and admirals signed a letter opposing the use of torture.

So Boot is using this article to say, Donald Trump wants to commit war crimes and 42 generals are against him. It’s a little “Never Trump” advertisement right in the middle of the Mongol hordes and the My Lai massacre lecture. Israel’s murdering medic helps us understand– Donald Trump. Look how dangerous civilian leaders can be! Donald Trump is the fascist.

Talk about chutzpah. Max Boot will go far.

For all the things that Boot says about Trump apply even moreso to the person we actually are interested in, the one we had reason to believe this article would be about, Benjamin Netanyahu’s new Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Everything Donald Trump has said— killing the relatives of terrorists, using torture, bombing indiscriminately– Lieberman has done him many times better.

That is what makes this story very dishonest. A real journalist in The New York Times tells readers that Lieberman has said Israel should bomb the Aswan dam; but Max Boot wants to talk about what Donald Trump would do.

And while I will take anything that Israel’s propagandists give me– So Israel is like America during Vietnam, who knew! – even accepting Boot’s hasbara moves the ethical landscape of Israel back a half a century. All those things that happened during the My Lai massacre– the headlights, the telegrams –that was 50 years ago. This country has changed. The world has changed. Do you really think today that an American soldier could get away with leading the genocide of hundreds of civilians and suffer house arrest? And that lots of politicians would support him?

But as a work of hasbara this is very impressive. If you read this article not very closely, you feel pretty good at the end. Boot has taken us away from the conversation about fascism in Israel to something that is “complex and interesting.” It turns out the Israeli military are great guys, and things were worse in the U.S.

I don’t think that Max Boot’s effort will succeed. The days are long gone when neocon thinkers and writers actually converted anyone new to their ideas about Israel. Now it’s just about managing the attrition rate to the other side. The longtime neoconservative organ Commentary is a relic of another age.

Commentary may be able to convince rightwing Jews that Israel is fine, but as Israel’s behavior becomes more and more incongruous with American values and ideals, the role of mainstream propagandists has become far more difficult. The average Jewish New York Times reader who supports Israel is today in a state of constant psychological crisis: How to resolve the cognitive dissonance, of Israel, a light unto the nations, a custodian of Jewish values, a sharer of western ideals, being run by Netanyahu, either a madman, a fanatic or (maybe best case scenario) someone whose only real concern is staying in power. And every other day there is news of another former friend and colleague of Netanyahu’s talking about fascism.

This brings me to the question I raise every time I look at the propagandists. Where is Jeffrey Goldberg?

Goldberg is the most important propagandist for Israel in the U.S., and so far he has been silent. He’s not too busy. Nothing is more important than this story. The New York Times has run a major article saying that there could be a coup in Israel and the Gaza War was superfluous and Netanyahu is out of control and the generals opposed his plan to attack Iran. These are hugely damaging assertions about Israel. But from Goldberg: Silence.

Goldberg is in a very difficult position. He cannot do what Max Boot has done here for a rightwing Jewish audience. Goldberg is mainstream. His many critics would laugh at him for changing the subject to Vietnam. No one would pass the article around at the State Department.

Goldberg needs to be in the absolute center of opinion on this subject to maintain his career as explainer. He can’t be too far right or left. He doesn’t want to lose control of the discourse, and he also wants to do something of what Boot has done here: try to save Israel’s image, try to make Israel’s American defenders feel good about the country they love. And of course try to make everyone feel good about Jeffrey Goldberg.

What he writes on this question will be the most important thing he writes for the next two or three years. And what makes this such a difficult decision for him is that I think what he wants to do is throw Netanyahu under the bus. He wants to say, This country is going in the wrong direction. Let us have a sane coalition in Israel, led by Moshe Yaalon. It is the only way to save Israel. Both Uri Avnery and Akiva Eldar have called for for a “unity government” from Meretz on the left to Benny Begin and Yaalon on the right with the Israeli declaration of independence as a guiding document. I think Goldberg would love to take a position like that. It would preserve his reputation among liberals and help Goldberg’s legacy too, by ending the criticism that he is Netanyahu’s stenographer.

But there is one big downside: the rightwing would go nuts. The Israeli lobby is Goldberg’s natural base and they still have considerable influence (look at Hillary Clinton’s campaign). They would tear him apart for taking such a stand. He would feel like one of Stalin’s henchman during the purges hearing a knock on the door at the wrong time of night and know what’s in store for him. Jennifer Rubin, Bret Stephens, and Dershowitz and maybe even the very clever Max Boot as well, would ask, what has happened to Jeffrey Goldberg? Why has be become a self hating Jew?

Goldberg has been thinking about these questions as he stares at his computer screen for many weeks now. There’s a risk no matter what he writes, for the “discourse” and his career. He can’t decide what to do. Each day he studies the reception of each new contribution about the Murdering medic, every new utterance about Yaalon, Netanyahu, Golan and Lieberman– anything to get a better sense which way the wind is blowing.

Everyone sees Jeffrey playing hookie because he is afraid he will fail the test. But Jeffrey, do it for us. It’s unfair to the rest of the world for you not to share your unique insights on the murdering medic and Israel’s road to fascism.

About Yakov Hirsch

Yakov Hirsch is a professional poker player and dog trainer. His twitter handle is @Yakovhirsch and his articles are posted at yakovhirsch.com.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

30 Responses

  1. hophmi
    May 29, 2016, 7:30 am

    “Do you really think today that an American soldier could get away with leading the genocide of hundreds of civilians and suffer house arrest? And that lots of politicians would support him?”

    Is this a serious question? Hell yeah! Look at the people supporting Trump. How many civilians died in Iraq and Afghanistan? What are the chances that we’d have anything like the debate the Israelis have had over the shooting of a wounded terrorist? Zero. And the same goes for Europe, BTW.

    • WH
      May 29, 2016, 5:40 pm

      ‘What are the chances that we’d have anything like the debate the Israelis have had over the shooting of a wounded terrorist? Zero. And the same goes for Europe, BTW.’

      You’re right, there wouldn’t be as much debate – because there would be widespread agreement that this was criminal behaviour. There’d be no need for politicians to calm baying mobs.

    • traintosiberia
      May 29, 2016, 9:45 pm

      A fair debate on the casualties was qua shed long ago when the butcher ,sorry the senator Joe Liberman declared to Americans- ” Al Quiada never apologized for ” the 911 victims and blithely sorry, more like a butcher ,declared ” why should we ”

      Other day CSPAN ,actually yesterday Sherman from CA was asking some deputy guy involved with Iran deal why should he trust these Iraniand when he can’t trust one car dealer or something in same vein. How many casualties have taken place because of the sanctions? How many more does he want ? Didn’t someone of the same Anti Iranian and pro Israeli camp actually declare that the death of the innocent Iranians were worth their endeavor and pursuits which are essentially defined by Israeli issues and concerns .?
      Actually all death in Middle East from 1991 are caused by Israel directly or indirectly .

    • John Douglas
      May 30, 2016, 9:04 am

      The fact that the point made by hophmi was made by hophmi is not a reason to reject it. The horrors that befell the people of Vietnam, Iraq and other places at US hands and for no reason that would even begin to justify them, makes it very difficult to criticize another country’s behavior with the phrase, “It would never happen here in the US.” Of course there are other critical avenues that are entirely legitimate in condemning Israel’s behavior towards the Palestinian people.

      • gamal
        May 30, 2016, 10:16 am

        ” The horrors that befell the people of Vietnam,”

        ” Of course there are other critical avenues that are entirely legitimate in condemning Israel’s behavior towards the Palestinian people.”

        especially when voiced by Palestinians who are not only not complicit in America’s serial crimes but were in fact in solidarity with people of Vietnam, both politically and practically

        George Habash called for the creation of little Hanoi’s through out the middle east, it hasn’t happened yet but i can hardly wait.

    • eljay
      May 30, 2016, 9:53 am

      || hophmi: “Do you really think today that an American soldier could get away with leading the genocide of hundreds of civilians and suffer house arrest? And that lots of politicians would support him?”

      Is this a serious question? Hell yeah! … ||

      I agree.

      || … What are the chances that we’d have anything like the debate the Israelis have had over the shooting of a wounded terrorist? Zero. … ||

      I disagree. I think there would be a debate.

      But that debate – like the debate in Israel – would just be a distraction from the blatant and unapologetic criminality surrounding the incident.

      So, while it’s terrific that Israelis debate the execution, what would be even better is if the majority supported the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability (“JAE”) and equality rather than the “Jewish State’s” on-going occupation and colonization of Palestine and related (war) crimes.

      Similarly, I would rather see Americans supporting JAE instead of mindlessly cheering America’s (mis-)adventures around the globe and occasionally debating a (relatively) minor injustice.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      May 30, 2016, 10:30 am

      Hold on a minute. It is not just the Trump supporters who look past the death of civilians at the hand of the US military. Obama’s fans rarely seem troubled by his drone strikes, his use of force to overthrow Gaddafi, his arming (mainly via the CIA) of Syrian “rebels.” You will only continue to alienate people by singling out Trump. We need to reach out to people in all camps.

      • silamcuz
        May 30, 2016, 12:32 pm

        There is absolutely no proof that Obama personally approved of the drone strikes on non-combatants, or in the overthrow of Gaddafi etc. He can’t even force his excellent universal healthcare coverage plan through, which he personally approved, what makes you think he had the power to act for or against these even more sensitive operations?

        Alienating people by singling out Trump? Huh? Trump represents the absolute worst in humanity, him as a person, him as a politician, and him as a set of ideals for voters to support in an election. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why we shouldn’t single him out, because in doing so, we are clearly making a statement against everything he and his supporters represent; stupidity, buffoonery, patriarchal entitlement, racism, sexism, homophobia and many many more.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 30, 2016, 12:46 pm

        There is absolutely no proof that Obama personally approved of the drone strikes on non-combatants, or in the overthrow of Gaddafi etc. He can’t even force his excellent universal healthcare coverage plan through, which he personally approved, what makes you think he had the power to act for or against these even more sensitive operations?

        obama, as commander in chief, doesn’t need to push authorization of drone strikes through congress. you should come up w/another analogy if you want to make the case obama doesn’t have “the power to act for or against these even more sensitive operations”. because he very much has the power to approve of drone strikes and there is proof he personally approved of them. (just google ” Obama personally approved of the drone strikes”)

      • Annie Robbins
        May 30, 2016, 12:56 pm

        There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why we shouldn’t single him out, because in doing so, we are clearly making a statement against everything he and his supporters represent

        hmm, not in the context of “the death of civilians at the hand of the US military”. that would be stupid in the context of trump, obama or clinton because of the three of them trump is the only person amongst them, thus far, not responsible for “the death of civilians at the hand of the US military”.

        bottom line “he and his supporters” do not represent “the death of civilians at the hand of the US military” more than obama or clinton’s supporters, not by a long shot.

        plus, in the statement “You will only continue to alienate people by singling out Trump” doesn’t imply those “people” being referenced are trump supporters. they could be sanders supporters. ie, if clinton were to single out trump as a war monger (or ‘wants to commit war crimes’) this would alienate me as a voter, not because i support trump but because of the hypocrisy embedded in the statement (she’s a war hawk). so it would alienate me against the person making the implication (in this case max boot).

        defending the murdering medic or a public supporting the murdering medic by arguing trump supports war crimes is really a stretch.

    • John Smithson
      May 31, 2016, 11:50 am

      Isn’t this just #3 in the classic 4 part Hasbara?

      1) We Rock 2) They suck 3) You suck 4) Everything sucks

      Maybe a bit of #4 as he adds Europe to the mix.

      Nice deflection but not biting.

    • G. Seauton
      June 1, 2016, 9:22 pm

      ‘ “Do you really think today that an American soldier could get away with leading the genocide of hundreds of civilians and suffer house arrest? And that lots of politicians would support him?”

      ‘Is this a serious question? Hell yeah! Look at the people supporting Trump. How many civilians died in Iraq and Afghanistan?’
      –Hophmi

      You’ve got to love it. Hophmi doesn’t actually do logical argumentation; instead, he spits out non sequiturs and other fallacious diversions. I don’t believe I’ve seen this idea pointed out.

      So here, in response to the question whether anyone really thinks an American soldier today could lead the genocide of hundreds of civilians and suffer only house arrest, with lots of politicians supporting him, Hophmi answers, “Hell yeah! Look at the people supporting Trump.” He follows up with “How many civilians died in Iraq and Afghanistan?” So the people supporting Trump are equivalent to American soldiers massacring hundreds of civilians and suffering only house arrest? Or Trump is equivalent to any such American soldiers? Or what else? There’s no reasonable analogy.

      Hophmi gives us an argument so fallacious as to suggest imminent brain death.

  2. Blownaway
    May 29, 2016, 10:16 am

    The good news is that the only people who read Commentary are unreformed neocons looking for confirmation of their views.

    • Mooser
      May 29, 2016, 11:03 am

      “The good news is that the only people who read Commentary are unreformed neocons looking for confirmation of their views.”

      Yup, see “Hophmi’s” comment, above.

  3. lysias
    May 29, 2016, 10:53 am

    The fact that leading generals in the German army had by the late 1930s come to deplore the excesses of the Nazis surely does nothing to exonerate Nazi Germany.

    • ToivoS
      May 29, 2016, 7:53 pm

      I think it was not until early 1942 that those leading generals began to deplore the war. It started to become clear to them that Germany could not win. This was after their efforts to take Moscow in December of 1941 failed. That effort cost over 100,000 killed and the decimation of multiple panzer dvisions. Those military leaders like Stauffenberg, Canaris, Rommel, etc might have been effective if they tried to do something in the late 1930s, when they finally tried it was too late. At that time they were all enthusiastic supporters of Hitler who provided them with wonderful career enhancing opportunities to conquer other nations.

      • lysias
        May 30, 2016, 10:22 am

        Canaris’s deputy Col. Oster was trying to organize a military takeover in 1938 when the Munich deal spoiled his plans, which many generals agreed with. Gen. Beck resigned as head of the General Staff in 1938 because of his disgust with Hitler’s policies.

  4. Pixel
    May 29, 2016, 10:55 am

    Whataboutery

  5. Another Dave
    May 29, 2016, 2:26 pm

    I am getting worried about the number of people who claim that the army is, or could be, a guarantor of ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ or whatever happy words you want to use.

    The military exists for one reason, to kill other people. If you’re going to rely on the military to defend your civil liberties, I’d suggest that you dig up one of the old Roman Senators and ask him how well Julius did at defending their Republic.

    Please don’t read this comment as a damning of only one nation. I’ll damn every nation that keeps a large standing army and uses that force to ‘defend’ themselves.

    Max Boot is not alone in his delusions about relying on the army.

  6. Ossinev
    May 29, 2016, 3:27 pm

    @hophmi
    “What are the chances that we’d have anything like the debate the Israelis have had over the shooting of a wounded terrorist”

    Yup the Yahoo had an agonising self debate with himself before deciding to contact the soldiers father to reassure him. I suppose he also had a parallel debate with himself over whether to contact the butchered Palestinian`s father to re-assure him – but guess what he decided not to.

    Don`t insult our intelligence in Western Civilisation (as opposed to Biblical Dreamworld JSIL) to suggest that there wouldn`t be anything like “the debate”. We in the civilized West as opposed to your s….y little Fascist colony demand of our armed forces that they abide by the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions both of which your wonderful fellow Zionist “menschen” have been giving two fingers to since the foundation of the Jewish State in the Levant.

  7. traintosiberia
    May 29, 2016, 3:30 pm

    ““History has chosen us to spearhead the fight against the terrorist Gazan enemy who curses, vilifies and abominates Israel’s God.”

    Is there an ISIS follower in town? They have companion right in the heart of the defender of the western civilization . At least that’s what the Zionst claim and have been since the begining of the 20 th century.
    Tony Blair should take note as well . He received a lot of attention and bucket load of silver from the nation that allow the fulfillment of this sort of religious ethnic narcism . His fight ago against radical Islam should start right there in his own backyard . What about those folks like Joe Liberman and Podohoretz who declared wars on Islamofasism while nestling over the fertilized eggs of the Zionism?

    • Citizen
      May 29, 2016, 5:58 pm

      Yeah, where is Joe Lieberman on all this? What’s the former VP running mate got to say?

  8. Ossinev
    May 29, 2016, 4:24 pm

    Interesting article in today`s New York Times about the current “frissures” in JSIL society and the suggestion by some politicians and military figures that Fascist tendencies are surfacing:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/world/middleeast/israel-idf-netanyahu-lieberman-yaalon.html?ref=middleeast&_r=0

    Usual “unbiaised” Hasbara intro referring to the 30 soldiers and civilians killed in the recent upsurge of violence with zero reference to the number of Palestinans killed in the same period.

    First time I had heard of JSL Army`s “code of ethics” referred to as the “Spirit of the IDF” (they do take themselves so so seriously these cult colonists).

    What really caught my eye though was the following item in the article:
    “Micah Goodman, an Israeli-American Jewish philosopher, had just returned from a week of reserve duty with his infantry unit in northern Israel where, he said, he slept in the field with high-tech investors and truck drivers, all wearing the same uniform.”

    “An Israeli-American Jewish philosopher”. Sounds like a foreign Zionist Jihadi to me.

    • WH
      May 29, 2016, 5:42 pm

      “Micah Goodman, an Israeli-American Jewish philosopher, had just returned from a week of reserve duty with his infantry unit in northern Israel where, he said, he slept in the field with high-tech investors and truck drivers, all wearing the same uniform.”

      Isn’t it so touching how a shared cause can unite people from different backgrounds!

  9. JLewisDickerson
    May 29, 2016, 8:31 pm

    RE: Boot says, I bring you good news, dear readers, from the land of Zion. The first lesson of the Murdering Medic story is that here is more proof that Israel once again in 2016 deserves the “most moral army in the world” designation. But what’s “interesting” is that it’s soldiers who are “most committed” to upholding the “laws of war.”

    MY COMMENT: Had not this extra-judicial execution been memorialized (unbeknownst to the IDF soldiers who perpetrated and witnessed it) by a video camera (wielded by an unseen Palestinian onlooker), this would have been announced by the IDF as one more ‘regrettable’ (but ‘unfortunately unavoidable’) instance of a terrorist dying during the course of his heinous suicide attack against the heroic soldiers of the IDF. The snuff video shows that the commanding officer authorized the execution, and none of the soldiers who witnessed it reacted to the execution as though they had the slightest problem with it. So much for Max Boot’s soldiers of the “most moral army in the world” who are the “most committed” to upholding the “laws of war”! ! !

    • traintosiberia
      May 29, 2016, 9:55 pm

      Americans,take note . You can destroy your ideals,values,moralities ,you can do everything to appease the unabashed Zionist but the moment you fault ,get a little wayward or deviate ,or forget to assure ,or apologetically request to hide at least a few of the bad truths ,they will jump on you
      They will prance up and down and collectively will bellow from their rotten core” what did America do in Vietnam? ” Who knows whether one day they will write OpEd in Saudi or Iraqi newspaper about unmitigated disasters that America inflicted on Arabs .Unlikely that in 10 yrs from now but no one will be surprised if that appears in 30 yrs from now.

  10. NorthCascadian
    May 30, 2016, 12:30 am

    I saw Boot at Lewis and Clark college in Portland he was “debating ” David Ignatius. He was calling for war with Iran death to Syria, and an intense hatred of Donald Trump so much so that dispite working for the Republican Rubio, he was urging people to vote Clinton because she will wage war. Only a foreign exchange student from Sudan had the guts to challenge this sick hateful Boot.

  11. KM363
    May 30, 2016, 12:52 pm

    “Goldberg has been thinking about these questions as he stares at his computer screen for many weeks now. There’s a risk no matter what he writes, for the “discourse” and his career. He can’t decide what to do.”

    Sorry I don’t want to seem mean-spirited, or maybe I do, because I loathe Goldberg and this passage made me laugh out loud. Goldberg the consummate sophist, favorite of the monarch, renowned for his wisdom but struck speechless, simply unable to come up with le mot juste to render his beloved Israel continually palatable to a sophisticated taste.

  12. RobertHenryEller
    May 31, 2016, 2:02 pm

    Jeffrey Goldberg’s ultimate writing principle is to not screw up the opportunity to conduct the next pro-Zionist U.S. foreign policy interview with the next U.S. President, and to conduct and edit those interviews so as not to lose pride of place with any Israeli Prime Ministers.

    If Goldberg can find a way to serve his own professional interests by writing about the murdering medic, he will do so. Otherwise, Goldberg will simply pass.

  13. RobertHenryEller
    May 31, 2016, 2:03 pm

    Max Boot’s family name was shortened from Bootlick.

Leave a Reply