When Batya Kahana-Dror tells a NY Jewish audience that she wants “maximal territory with minimal Arab citizens” inside Israeli borders, no one criticizes her. But when a woman in the audience calls on ending US aid to Israel, Rabbi Ayelet Cohen says that she’s being disrespectful.
Category Archives: Media
Haim Saban hints that Hillary Clinton is against the Iran deal, a strategic move to make sure Republicans don’t get the pro-Israel money that they seem to think is in play
Having reported so sympathetically on Chagos Islanders’ right of return, doesn’t NPR have an obligation to report on Palestinians, expelled from their homeland 67 years ago?
The NYT devotes three paragraphs to a Netanyahu aide saying the PM played a “decisive” role in Congressional efforts to stop the Iran deal. Really! How much are our congresspeople motivated by pro-Israel financial contributions? The press needs to explore
Center for American Progress has links to Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party. Is that why it’s having an event on “Palestinian issues” that doesn’t include a single Palestinian?
The American public is overwhelmingly behind the Iran deal. So who is against it and demanding that Congress has oversight? Only the rightwing Israel lobby. Though yesterday Obama got the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to reject “two of Netanyahu’s demands”
Obama met yesterday for hours with Malcolm Hoenlein and Haim Saban and other Jewish leaders to try and back his Iran deal. The Israel lobby has never been more obvious, but where is the US press?
Administration after administration, legislator after legislator has gone in a way that “contradicts U.S. interest… international law, human rights, moral values, you name it,” Gideon Levy says. And is all that because of the “corrupting friendship” of the Israel lobby?
At a time when the New York Times is openly reporting on pro-Israel money in the political process, Ed Schultz has questioned his loyalty to Netanyahu on MSNBC, Chuck Schumer would be risking political peril if he undermines Obama on the historic Iran deal.
Why is the liberal press not embracing Rand Paul’s antiwar position? Because the elites have nothing to lose from another war in the Middle East, and even Dems have big political contributions to gain.
A storm erupted on Rand Paul’s announcement day for the presidential nomination when Chris Matthews decried the neocon opposition to Paul, “piggish money” that is against him because he’s against another Middle East war.
In an interview with Tom Friedman of the New York Times, President Obama shows that he has won on foreign policy, speaking warmly of Iran and repeatedly referring to differences with Netanyahu in a kind of goodbye to the Israel lobby
The New York Times has finally done it: an honest piece about the Israel lobby’s financial influence over Congress, the Republican side of the aisle, anyway. Netanyahu’s influence among Republicans reflects the power of “a small group of wealthy donors.”
The flat assumption in a NYT piece that Netanyahu can turn the volume up or down in Congress at will may be a true assumption. But why aren’t the networks telling us this? And where is the outrage?
New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren suggests Obama owes some sort of compensation to Israel for not kowtowing to Netanyahu on Iran. The Times did not get the message that Netanyahu got knocked down, left behind and hung out to dry in Lausanne, Switzerland two days ago. He’s been demoted, not the other way around.
In a NY Review of Books piece that describes “proto-fascist” currents in the last Israeli election, David Shulman never uses the nickname “Bibi” for Netanyahu. But the editors of the journal do so twice in headlines, surely out of some lingering affection for the Jewish strongman
A March 2015 Pew research poll shows Americans sympathize with Israel more than Palestinians; but among Democrats the numbers are close, 57-54; and liberal Dems actually sympathize with Palestinians more, 68-60
Comedy Central stands by Jon Stewart’s replacement Trevor Noah as rightwing sites suggest he has a “Jewish problem.” The real problem is that he is likely to be critical of Israeli militarism
Hillary Clinton throws Obama’s foreign policy under the bus, making a call to a leading rightwing Israel supporter Sunday to say that she wants to put the relations between the countries back on a constructive track. Not a word in the Times about her fundraising concerns.
Israeli PM Netanyahu’s dismissal of the two-state solution in the last days of the election campaign in Israel is having a huge and beneficial effect on the discussion of the conflict inside the United States. President Obama has taken Netanyahu at his word and says there will be no two-state solution for “several years.” He seems to be doing what many on the US left are doing: preparing Americans to think about what one state looks like.
In 1967, American Jews fell in love with Israel and made a solemn promise to protect the country through thick and thin. Nearly fifty years later the same community is reconsidering that vow. What we are seeing is a transfer of power from the Israeli Jewish community to the Diaspora Jewish community that Benjamin Netanyahu failed to anticipate even as he precipitated it.
Jodi Rudoren’s recent piece from Jerusalem titled “Rebukes From White House Risk Buoying Netanyahu” is a full-on assault on President Obama for taking on Netanyahu over his repudiation of the two-state solution and his election day racism, and it is disingenuous from start to finish, beginning with the headline. The aim of the piece is to buoy Netanyahu and submarine Obama. Phil Weiss writes he has never seen anything like this before: the top space of the newspaper turned over to a war- and fear-mongering foreign leader to undermine the US president.
In a review of Israeli S. Yizhar’s novel Khirbet Khizeh in the NYT, Dexter Filkins uses words like herded, roundup, evacuate, left, fled, deport, leave, to describe the expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948. These words wash over the devastating reality of the Nakba.
Big Jewish donors who support the settlement project in Israel have influenced the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton and major Jewish organizations– surprisingly frank comments by the New York Times and young leaders at J Street’s conference.