Trending Topics:

MSM jailbreak: Chris Hayes devotes 2 hours to conflict with panel of 2 Zionists and 2 Palestinians

on 79 Comments
Chris Hayes and Mustapha Barghouti
Chris Hayes and Mustafa Barghouti

Sunday morning marked a historic day in the mainstream discourse: Chris Hayes devoted two hours of his MSNBC show “Up With Chris Hayes” to a discussion of the Israel/Palestine conflict, with a balanced roundtable. Let me repeat, with a balanced roundtable.

I’ve watched about half the show so far and I’m blown away by the fact that in the discourse Hayes established, two Zionists, Jeremy Ben-Ami at the center-left and Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi at the far right, must share the forum with Palestinians Rula Jebreal, the author of Miral, and Leila Hilal of the New America Foundation.

Jebreal repeatedly takes on Laszlo Mizrahi for distorting her views, once puts her head in her hands as Laszlo Mizrahi talks; while Laszlo Mizrahi looks like she has a stomach ache.

Some of the highlights: in segment 1, Jebreal says the whole debate over Iran is “irrational,” driven by Jewish fears; Hayes seems to endorse this view when he describes Netanyahu’s gift to Obama of the Purim chapter of the bible, and Netanyahu’s reported comment, “Even then they [Persians] wanted to wipe us out”;  Hilal also says the bias in the U.S. debate is the contention that Iran won’t behave as a rational actor; Ben-Ami boldly chimes in that it doesn’t make any sense to contend that Iran will drop a bomb on Tel Aviv, because it would be destroyed if it did so…

In segment 3, Hayes insists on talking about the settlements. He brings on a surprisingly refreshing retired Israeli general, Shlomo Gazit, who says he thinks there is no likelihood of a two state solution. “I don’t see the possibility of an Israeli government capable of taking the decision of removing [60-80,000 settlers so as to achieve a] border that can allow the establishment of a viable Palestinian state… It will be literally a civil war in Israel.”

For his part, Hayes says that the political consensus for a two state solution has been “vastly eroded,” and Ben-Ami says that this is the right wing’s doing (ignoring the liberals and leftists who support a one state solution). And Gazit does little to promote the two-state solution when he says it is necessary to preserve a strong Jewish majority, of 80 percent Jews in Israel…

More to come tomorrow. Meantime, we really must applaud Hayes, who states in segment two that the debate over Israel and Palestine “is grounded within the special relationship” — which means, no Palestinians get to speak. He has done a ton to reverse that. Let’s hope his bravery is contagious.

(I guess this means I have to apologize to David Cohen of Comcast? No; I’m still waiting for the other Chris.)

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

79 Responses

  1. Bill in Maryland
    Bill in Maryland
    March 11, 2012, 11:28 pm

    Bravo to Chris Hayes- his intrinsic charm, journalistic integrity, and nimble intellect allowed him to carry off this amazing achievement (for American cable) though he seemed a little more tense than he usually does weekend mornings. His inclusion of the guest live from Ramallah was the pièce de résistance. Thank you Mr. Hayes!

  2. chris o
    chris o
    March 11, 2012, 11:53 pm

    “Up With Chris Hayes” is an excellent show so this is not surprising. Even though it is MSNBC, I am not sure about the MSM part. He is from the Nation and his show is what you might expect from that magazine if it had a television show like this.

  3. Donald
    Donald
    March 11, 2012, 11:56 pm

    I have to watch the rest of that online sometime, but the hour or so that I did see was great in just the way you described. Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi got in the usual claim that Israel gave up the Gazan settlements and the Palestinians returned the favor with rocket fire, but in this case, one of the Palestinians (I think Jebreal) later managed to get in the fact that Israel had placed Gaza under siege and shot at fishermen for the crime of going more than 3 miles offshore. If most of the MSM was this fair you could almost shut your blog down. Not quite, of course, but the media criticism aspect would fold up.

    But not to worry–it’s hard to imagine the other Chris or Rachel or Ed or Lawrence (not sure about Al) doing anything of this sort.

  4. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    March 12, 2012, 12:25 am

    I thought in the first half, Ms. Mizrahi had strong eyes and also she made a strong point when she said Egypt’s people only agreed to peace because they repeatedly tried to destroy Israel but couldn’t. This reminds me of the wars of 1948 and 1973, in which I think this happened. Offhand, a rebuttal doesn’t come to mind.

    On the other hand, when Jubrea started talking about growing up and her family getting blankets at night for the casualties foreseen due to the bombings, it was like someone suddenly describing the 800 pound gorilla in the corner that the room isn’t discussing. Except that she was speaking from personal experience.

    • anonymouscomments
      anonymouscomments
      March 12, 2012, 2:28 am

      in ’48 Egypt offered very little to DEFEND against the absurd partition foisted on the region from european votes, with a ludicrous UN partition plan which zionists had no intention to implement. more importantly, the preemptive armed attacks by zionist forces, which were creating (intentionally) a steady stream of refugees, was a main reason egypt entered the war…. and the main reason there was an israeli “war of independence” in the first place was because zionists *chose* to have one. they could have had no war, worked for a secular parliamentary democracy, or slowly moved to implement the partition plan *as envisioned* with careful and methodical movement on the ground.

      in 1967, many clear-headed analysts contend that egypt had *no intention to attack*. even israelis have stated that opening the front with egypt was preventive and a *war of choice*.

      after israel stole the sinai, and was colonizing it, egypt had every right to attack israel, and they did. and that is how they eventually got it back, through the eventual peace agreement which followed that show of force. maybe israel only understands force….

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        March 12, 2012, 10:52 am

        Was Egypt attacking to retake the Sinai only, or to destroy Israel as Mizrahi said?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        March 12, 2012, 11:03 am

        Was Egypt attacking to retake the Sinai only, or to destroy Israel as Mizrahi said?

        Retake the Sonai. Nasser had made repeated requests for Israel to pull back only 2 km from their position. As usual, Israel would have nothing if it.

        The claim if efforts to destroy Israel are thrown around to describe any policies or actions that stand in Israel’s way.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        March 12, 2012, 11:21 am

        /Was Egypt attacking to retake the Sinai only, or to destroy Israel as Mizrahi said?/
        Most Israeli historians that i have read agree that the initial goals of the
        war by (Egypt) was to retake the Sinai desert or part of it.

        That does not mean that should the attack was to become a bigger success that these plans would not have changed, but that is pure speculation.

    • OlegR
      OlegR
      March 12, 2012, 8:41 am

      /On the other hand, when Jubrea started talking about growing up and her family getting blankets at night for the casualties foreseen due to the bombings/

      She was talking about 1991 when Iraq fired scud missiles at Israel.

    • Pixel
      Pixel
      March 12, 2012, 4:53 pm

      Mizrahi also invoked the ad nauseum charge that Ahmadinejad threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.”

      According to numerous translations of that statement, Ahmadinejad never used the word “map.” Rather, his comment was made in the context of time, expressing his hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would, eventually, fall.

      Lost in translation by Jonathan Steele

  5. Krauss
    Krauss
    March 12, 2012, 1:04 am

    It’s stunning.

    I saw the whole thing on Youtube. I was grasping for breath. This guy has courage!

    I think the reason for this is because he has ignored the hasbara. He went to the actualy settlements and saw it all for himself. And he understands where Israel is heading if nothing is done. He’s doing Israel huge favours for brining back the spotlight to Palestine in this way, but I’m sure the ultra-Zionists are exploding.

    He said a lot of true things. He plainly rejected the fantasy that there is some mythic left inside Israel that will save it from itself if Netanyahu is kicked out. The peacemovement is dead. The other side represents the status quo too, in some ways more so than Netanyahu.

    He didn’t mention that Olmert killed far more people in Lebanon/Gaza than Netanyahu ever dreamed of. Nor did he mention that Labor was the party under which settlements increased the most and Mapai, Labor’s forerunner, was the party that initiatied the two rounds of ethnic cleansing (’48 and ’67) of Palestinians that we’ve seen so far.

    Still, he flatly rejected the Hasbara of the woman from the Israel Project when she said that ‘settlement construction had stopped’. It was a partial freeze and construction continued within existing settlement blocs, and Hayes called her out on that.

    Same with the whole ‘Iran tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador’ meme which there is no proof of but a lot of MSM smoke and mirrors.

    He also asked the Palestinians some pretty harsh questions, even one asking(he admitted it was provocative) that ‘what’s wrong with the status quo?’ which Mr. Barghouti demolished with ease.

    I’m not sure if this is a breakthrough for the MSM yet, but it shows that the liberal firewall of uncondtional support for Israel is breaking down. And it’s being led by Gentiles. Just like Jews led the Civil Rights struggle back here at home, it seems an outsider is much more capable of brining justice to the situation than most(but far from all) insiders.

    Another important thing that happened is the way the neocons have turned against The Forward for publishing balanced piece on Abuminah and a personal Op-Ed by JJ Goldberg on his friend, MJ Rosenberg. I think they have a point on the Rosenberg piece which was biased but it wasn’t a news article, it was an Op-Ed where Goldberg came clean right away and said Rosenberg had been his friend for a long time.

    But Commentary, the highest neocon temple, devoted a long, angry post to the ‘limits of pro-Israel discourse’. He usually has denounced any opposition as ‘marginal’ and ‘extremist’ but this opposition within the Jewish community is gaining momentum and his privelege is melting away, and he fears it.

    He lashes out against a ‘confused’ Jewish left which he says doesn’t know what it wants. But what he is facing for the first time in generations is a coherent response which isn’t on the margins anymore.

    The neocons have radicalized us. The way they tracked down Goldstone all over the world and even crashed his son’s Bar Mitzah in South Africa to harass him and denigrate him in front of his closest family members and friends.

    They broke him down and he finally did what they wanted. He went to the Op-Ed pages of NYT, was rejected when they saw what was going on, and then went to WaPo instead and did his whole ‘I was wrong on everything, everyone who disagrees with Israel is a suspect character’ piece.

    As long as opposition to these right-wing ideologues is scarce they can pick us off one by one. What’s happening now is that you’re reaching a critical mass. Are they going to call all of us self-hating Jews?

    Things are finally turning around.
    Here’s Commentary’s attack on all left-wing Jews:

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/11/define-pro-israel-mj-rosenberg-forward-abunimah/

  6. Taxi
    Taxi
    March 12, 2012, 3:05 am

    Jennifer Mizrahi was by far the biggest liar/propagandist/apologist for the colonial israeli Apartheid settlement enterprise on the panel.

    Everyone else seemed well-reasoned and sincerely seeking a ‘compromise’ for peace.

    • anonymouscomments
      anonymouscomments
      March 12, 2012, 3:44 am

      agreed- she made me sick. i loved (hated?) when she said some BS and the palestinian to her left had to place her head in her hands upon hearing the tired hasbara. this program was *groundbreaking* for the MSM approach to I/P. and i really liked the retired general from israel. it is great when a somewhat fair-minded israeli can smack down jewish americans drunk on ziocaine.

      it’s priceless when hasbara spouting american jews who often haven’t been to israel, let alone the OPT, get put in their place by someone they really cannot dispute. idiot israel-firsters, who don’t know the first thing about israel- or what is best for israel.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      March 12, 2012, 7:16 am

      She claims that the Palestinians only want a two state solution as a step to take the rest of the land. And that more attacks are going to happen from their side, if they have a state.

      Of course she doesn’t have a problem with the fact, that his has been the Zionist’s strategy for the last six decades.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      March 12, 2012, 10:21 am

      Taxi, I just watched the whole thing and that’s my take too, which I ASAP tweeted to all my followers (along with the “jailbreak” aspect). I expect lots of RTs. Mizrahi was notable for injecting lots of lying hasbara talking points. Hayes called her on some of them. It was funny when Hayes asked what should Americans know, and Mizrahi responded that all they need to do is go to the Israel Project web site.

    • Pixel
      Pixel
      March 12, 2012, 5:00 pm

      Jennifer Mizrahi also wore a blood red dress.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        March 13, 2012, 12:31 pm

        Her rapid eye movement was crazy as one of the comments John made over at Chris Hayes blog pointed out
        “What follows was something very spooky in Mizrahi’s Rapid Eye Movements during the interchange between Hayes and Chafets (at 13:35 of the segment)

        And what the former spokesperson for Likud’s PM Begin was saying was what Hayes brushed aside as descriptive. Chafets is well known for his polemical assaults on opponents of Israel and what he regards as a pro Palestinian bias in the intelligentsia. Yet on Hayes’ show this expert on opinion is assuming the mantle of journalistic objectivity. Why? His message- the critical message warranting Mirahi’s close monitoring- was just how united the US and Israel perspectives are and how bipartisan we are about it (excepting the “Blips” such as with with Carter). So he presents his fiction as fact by wearing the clothes of the journalist. Then comes Hayes’ response:”
        http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/11/10644505-sundays-show-march-11#comments

  7. giladg
    giladg
    March 12, 2012, 5:46 am

    Barghouti said and I quote “there hasn’t been a single act of violence from our side for the last years”. Can someone please remind Barghouti of the brutal killing of the Fogal family in Itamar, including a baby, a few months old.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      March 12, 2012, 6:42 am

      So every settler (or other Israeli individual) attack is an act of violence from Israel(‘s side), too?

      • giladg
        giladg
        March 12, 2012, 8:17 am

        No one is pretending that there are no acts of violence. Except of course if you are Barghouti. He would have us believe that the Palestinians have successfully adopted a policy of non-violence against Israel. This could not be further from the truth. Even at the regular infamous Friday demonstrations at Billin the shabab (youth) always throw stones. Stones kill and have. Throwing stones is not what you call non-violence and Gandhi would agree. Besides the stones there are stabbings, shootings and killings perpetrated by the Palestinians.
        Barghouti is doing as best a job as he could possibly do. Only reality does not quite jell with his picture of things.
        And regarding his accusing Israel of apartheid policies, by his reference to separate roads for Jews and Arabs. I can tell you categorically that in apartheid South Africa there were never separate roads for Blacks and Whites (there are in Saudi Arabia by the way roads only for Muslims). So if there are separate roads in Yehuda and Shomron, then they are there for reasons that have nothing to do with apartheid. They are there because of the deadly violence carried out by the Palestinians on whoever they may find on some roads. So the next time you hear Barghouti and others mention the roads as the smoking gun to Israeli policies, please either change the channel or turn the page. Move on until you find more responsible Arab leadership.

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 12, 2012, 9:27 am

        Rubber bullets kill too. You guys screaming for nonviolence on the part o fthe Palestinians take for granted the right of your side to inflict any level of violence your thugs in uniform claim is necessary. Anyway, the standards for nonviolence vary. Everyone talks about the nonviolence of the Egyptian uprising, but in fact there were street battles between the security forces and the protestors. I’m not criticizing the protestors, but it shows that street battles against Egyptian forces are forgotten when there is talk of “nonviolence”, but stones thrown against police with body armor is supposed to have us all weepy and upset.

        “I can tell you categorically that in apartheid South Africa there were never separate roads for Blacks and Whites (there are in Saudi Arabia by the way roads only for Muslims). So if there are separate roads in Yehuda and Shomron, then they are there for reasons that have nothing to do with apartheid. They are there because of the deadly violence carried out by the Palestinians on whoever they may find on some roads. ”

        A non-sequitur so ridiculous it’s hard to believe anyone could have typed it without laughing. Anyway, if the United States not only occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, but started building settlements against the will of the locals and on stolen property, I suspect we’d have to build some “for American only” roads. Not because of apartheid, mind you, but because some of the locals might react violently to the fact that we were stealing their land and setting up two sets of rules and two sets of everything for the locals and the American immigrants. Oh, wait….

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        March 12, 2012, 10:43 am

        Apartheid roads in Palestine are only “necessary” because of the apartheid car registration rules! If your dim lot hadn’t made it all too easy to identify who owns which cars simply by looking at the color of the darn numberplate (while of course it makes it easy for your Occupation Forces to interfere with the free movement of Palestinians), then there would be far fewer supposed attacks. But for you lot, its all about oppression and control to prevent a real uprising against the constant theft and erasure of the country of Palestine.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 12, 2012, 10:52 am

        giladg, prior to Barghouti speaking there was a long discussion concerning the history of Palestinian non-violent protesting, how it has been handled by Israel, and how said non-violent strategy in action has never been reported by the American mainstream media (while conversely, I would have loved to have comparatively injected, Americans have been constantly reminded–as Mizrahi said-of Israelis huddling in their bomb shelters from Palestinian rockets).

        Barghouti spoke about how Palestinians had by and large, including HAMAS refrained from violence over last two years. And he reminded audience that it would really help curbing the cycle of violence if the World, especially the US media, would not remain silent about what Israel does to the Palestinians even when they are non-violent and/or totally innocent–he said the World is starting to act more responsible supporting non-violence, as an example, the boat flotillas. He said that what is needed is real compromise based on the fact that the Palestinians are accepting a state with only 22% of their original land when it should be a state comprising at least 45% of that land; in short, the ball has been in Israel’s court to take a step of real compromise, but instead it grabs more land via settlements, hence eating up the piece of cheese that is the very subject of compromise. If settlements are “disputed land,” then it follows that so are Israel’s borders disputed land on both sides of the green line going back to ’48.

        Misrahi responded to Barghouti by saying, while he’s to be thanked for saving both Israeli and Palestinian lives, he forgot to mention an active terrorist recently killing 8 Israelis. She maintained HAMAS could have stopped those killings. Barghouti replied that Israel invades and does what it wants to the Gaza dwellers when ever it feels like it, implying (already discussed earlier) how hard it is to totally eliminate all violent reaction considering Israel’s conduct, and Israel does not support his efforts, e.g., Israel recently went into Gaza and closed down two Palestinians radio stations devoted to preaching non-violence by Gaza folks.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 12, 2012, 11:15 am

        “And regarding his accusing Israel of apartheid policies, by his reference to separate roads for Jews and Arabs. I can tell you categorically that in apartheid South Africa there were never separate roads for Blacks and Whites (there are in Saudi Arabia by the way roads only for Muslims). So if there are separate roads in Yehuda and Shomron, then they are there for reasons that have nothing to do with apartheid.”

        1/10 for effort.
        -5/10 for logic

        The security shtick is a little tired in 2012. Especially given Israel was never interested in a Palestinian state

        Who are Yehuda and Shomron ?

      • giladg
        giladg
        March 12, 2012, 12:48 pm

        You might want to ask your Palestinian and Arab friends why they declared war on Israel in 1967, WHEN THERE WERE NO SETTLEMENTS !

      • giladg
        giladg
        March 12, 2012, 12:59 pm

        Yehuda and Shomron is the biblical name for the same piece of land you refer to as the West Bank. Basically Yehuda is the area south of Jerusalem and the Shomron to the north. You may also want to research the twelve tribes of Israel. “Yehud” is the Hebrew word that you know as “Jew”, both being around along time before any Palestinian came to town. This may help some of you understand that these areas are the same land that Abraham, the forefather of the Jewish people, roamed. So yes, Jews have a direct connection to their biblical homeland, especially in Yehuda and Shomron.

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 12, 2012, 3:32 pm

        “You might want to ask your Palestinian and Arab friends why they declared war on Israel in 1967, WHEN THERE WERE NO SETTLEMENTS !”

        Look, this is nursery school level debate. I could reply on a slightly higher level (the Arabs declared war because Israel was bombing them) or we could just cut the garbage. Palestinians were hostile to Israel before 1967 because the creation of Israel included the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, including killings of thousands of civilians many after the war, in the late 40’s and early 50’s according to Benny Morris’s “Israel’s Border Wars”.

        What is the comment section for, btw? I’ve been wondering that for the past month or so. RW was banned because of all the threadjacking and endless arguments (which I participated in) over denial of simple facts, but nothing has changed. Here we’ve got someone pretending to find it mysterious that Palestinians were hostile to Israel before the 67 settlements–that argument might be popular in certain circles and might even convince people who don’t know anything about 48, but it’s simply ridiculous. It’s like asking why Native Americans were hostile to white settlers before, say, the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890. Well, gosh, I don’t know, maybe because there were other bad things that had happened before then? And yes, Palestinians in turn had killed Jewish civilians in the 20’s, including children, and the Palestinians in turn were resentful of the fact that an imperial power had promised their land to a minority moving in from outside. And before that, in the 1890’s, an early Zionist Ahad Ha’am complained that his fellow Zionists treated Arabs with racist contempt.

      • annie
        annie
        March 12, 2012, 3:54 pm

        What is the comment section for, btw? I’ve been wondering that for the past month or so.

        someone is giving us biblical lessons as some diversion technique. i think we may have a first class hasbara fruitcake on our site. hopefully it is a temporary affliction.

      • Bill in Maryland
        Bill in Maryland
        March 12, 2012, 4:12 pm

        @giladg, thank you for your scholarly and highly relevant teachings. BTW, why do you bother to write comments in this language we refer to as “English”? Why not, for the sake of consistency, express yourself in Ancient Hebrew, the language of the twelve tribes of Israel?

      • US Citizen
        US Citizen
        March 12, 2012, 4:16 pm

        You guys, giladg is the latest is hasbara recruits, he embarrasses himself all the time over on Foreign Policy where is allowed to whine and smear everyone that does not agree with him. But, fortunately, everyone here counters his ridiculous hasbaric claims and re-written fiction narrative quite nicely. Political movements which are standing on solid ground, and which have facts, reason and morality on their side, do not stoop to these methods. It’s a sign of desperation and general intellectual bankruptcy.

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 12, 2012, 4:18 pm

        “i think we may have a first class hasbara fruitcake on our site. hopefully it is a temporary affliction.”

        Well, I’m not calling for his banning, and anyway, if it isn’t him it will be someone else and if I don’t reply someone else will. In other words, this is permanent. That particular issue (why were Palestinians hostile before the settlements) is a standard hasbara point and there’s a number of others and we’ve probably seen them all by now, many many times. How should people respond? I’ve half-seriously suggested that there be some numbering system for the hasbara arguments (building off the JSF post) and some numbering system for the responses, so we could shorten the threads up. A hasbarist types in some argument, the moderator looks at it, sighs,deletes the comment, replaces it with “Hasbara argument 14”, which links to a definitive statement of the argument, probably better written. Then while he or she is at it, they can then provide the link to “Hasbara argument refutation 14”. Problem solved, rehash of old arguments nipped in bud.

        Maybe it could even be automated. I bet some clever programmer could write something that would recognize a hasbara argument from certain key words. In this case “Palestinians” “declared war on Israel” “no settlements” “1967” might do the trick. Or why wait for human input (assuming that’s what we have now) to start the process off? Just have a random number generator type in random Hasbara numbers and every day we could just see the debates appear automatically.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2012, 5:19 pm

        “Yehuda and Shomron is the biblical name for the same piece of land you refer to as the West Bank.”

        Nope. You got it reversed. It’s called the West Bank by everyone except for religious lunatics and fascists. So which are you?

        “You may also want to research the twelve tribes of Israel.”

        Why? That mythology is irrelevant to modern life.

        “This may help some of you understand that these areas are the same land that Abraham, the forefather of the Jewish people, roamed.”

        LOL. No, there was no Abraham. He is a myth, and is no more connected to any living person than Darth Vader or Micky Mouse.

        “So yes, Jews have a direct connection to their biblical homeland, especially in Yehuda and Shomron.”

        False. That your fairy stories refer to the place and the fact that some of your ancestors lived there (as did the ancestors of the Palestinians) does not present a “direct” connection. It provides nothing more than less-than-interesting and ultimately irrelevant trivia.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2012, 5:22 pm

        ” your Palestinian and Arab friends why they declared war on Israel in 1967″

        Nope. Got it wrong. The Zionist entity started the 1967 war. Even Abba Eban admit it. So are you ignorant or a liar?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2012, 5:24 pm

        “And regarding his accusing Israel of apartheid policies, by his reference to separate roads for Jews and Arabs. I can tell you categorically that in apartheid South Africa there were never separate roads for Blacks and Whites (there are in Saudi Arabia by the way roads only for Muslims).”

        Well at least we have one Zio admitting that the Israeli are worse than Apartheid South Africa.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 12, 2012, 5:30 pm

        I agree Donald, not to mention some big time Israeli leaders of the time said later that the ’67 War was a preemptive war of choice on the part of Israel.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2012, 5:37 pm

        “What is the comment section for, btw? I’ve been wondering that for the past month or so. RW was banned because of all the threadjacking and endless arguments (which I participated in) over denial of simple facts, but nothing has changed.”

        Stomp one cockroach, 3 take its place. Get rid of RW, have to put up with the likes of gilad, Oleg and Izak.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        March 12, 2012, 6:03 pm

        “No one is pretending that there are no acts of violence.”

        I asked you, if every settler (or other Israeli individual) attack is an act of violence FROM ISRAEL!

        “I can tell you categorically that in apartheid South Africa there were never separate roads for Blacks and Whites (there are in Saudi Arabia by the way roads only for Muslims).”

        It’s not Barghouti’s fault you don’t know the international definition of Apartheid which is not a surprise, since your Judemographethnocracy refuses to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

        “So if there are separate roads in Yehuda and Shomron, then they are there for reasons that have nothing to do with apartheid. They are there because of the deadly violence carried out by the Palestinians on whoever they may find on some roads”

        Funny that the Afrikaans had the same apology for their apartheid measures. Do you think that the Palestinians violence in this particular territory has something to do with the illegal presence of illegal settlers in illegal settlements on illegally confiscated land and the illegal violence to maintain their illegal presence?

        And considering all the other crimes against Palestinians for the last six decades including expulsion, dispossession, denationalization, plundering, and their more then ten times higher kill ratio in the last decade; what security measures do you suggest against the “deadly violence carried out by the” Jews?

        “You might want to ask your Palestinian and Arab friends why they declared war on Israel in 1967, WHEN THERE WERE NO SETTLEMENTS!”

        They propably did in the Kahane-continuum, but not in our universe. Ask the top terrorist Menachem Begin: “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
        http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/55%20Address%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin%20at%20the%20National

        But if you ask your Zionist and Jewish friends how on earth they acquired the territory for their state you can draw your own conclusions why the Palestinians behave the way they do. Or you can ignore it and cry antisemitism like so many other nutcases.

        “So yes, Jews have a direct connection to their biblical homeland, especially in Yehuda and Shomron.”

        So yes, you support the Palestinians right to return, because they – being a former citizen of Palestine – can even prove their “connection” to their homeland. Or do you want to keep them expelled and segregated from their homeland to maintain the domination of a Jewish regime? Don’t say yes, before you look up the international definition of the Crime of Apartheid.

      • annie
        annie
        March 12, 2012, 6:53 pm

        It’s a sign of desperation and general intellectual bankruptcy.

        truth is not their friend.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 12, 2012, 7:55 pm

        (there are in Saudi Arabia by the way roads only for Muslims)

        These are only the roads which lead into Makkah and Madina. These areas are closed to non-Muslims, and the roads which lead around them are open for everyone and just as good as the roads which lead in.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 12, 2012, 8:01 pm

        Donald, for automated Hasbara they could just adapt the post-Modern generator.
        All that needs to be done is to tack a set of approved phrases together. No need for it to make any more sense than post-Modernism

        http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

      • Blake
        Blake
        March 14, 2012, 3:36 pm

        Gilad, I am amazed how your irrational minds work. Your Jewish only roads are all in the illegally occupied settlement (read: squatter camp) areas of the west Bank for starters. I am not prepared to waste any more time on you than that.

      • gamal
        gamal
        March 14, 2012, 4:25 pm

        “Saudi Arabia by the way roads only for Muslims”, you mean the road to mecca where saudis dont allow non-muslims, your point being? or which other ones did you have in mind, saudi arabia that gives full expression to regressive muslimness, when do we invade those dirty bastards and where are the fugees from their state formation, apart from (and kuwait and most gulf states) the stateless Bedou, my surname means bedouin in arabic we dont get a fair deal but then i am not nor were my family bedou we adopted the name 70 years or so ago after a big family falling out over inheritance, we was robbed, so in a couple of hundred years my descendents can rampage all over the empty quarter reclaiming our heritage. but i am related to people who were bedou oh er 1000 years ago, so i am moving to montana soon (going to be a dental floss tycoon) if you know what i mean. history if you take it uncritically its going to screw you up.

    • piotr
      piotr
      March 12, 2012, 9:24 am

      Murderers were just individuals, not representing any “side”.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        March 12, 2012, 10:51 am

        That opens to discussion the meaning of the word “side”
        in Barghouti’s eyes.

        If a settler (Goldstein comes to mind as a remotely possible analogy) would have done anything close to that little piece of horror to whose “side” would Barghouti’s contribute it to?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        March 12, 2012, 11:11 am

        If a settler (Goldstein comes to mind as a remotely possible analogy) would have done anything close to that little piece of horror to whose “side” would Barghouti’s contribute it to?

        Barghouti didn’t even mention settler violence ad I realm, though most of it is being protected by members of the Knesset, so it’s tolerated, if not Israeli policy.

      • pabelmont
        pabelmont
        March 12, 2012, 8:22 pm

        I wonder if the pogroms in Russia and Poland against Jews were regarded as local crimes of individuals or raised to the level of crimes BY the whole people or BY the government. One test is whether the police tried to stop them or just watched or even participated (as Israeli police and army seem to do).

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      March 12, 2012, 11:06 am

      Can someone please remind Barghouti of the brutal killing of the Fogal family in Itamar, including a baby, a few months old.

      Can someone remind Gilad that neither Fatah nor Hamas, not any Palestinian group had anyhthing to do with this break and enter/murder?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 12, 2012, 5:52 pm

        Gilad has no clue that considering, since ’47, who’s land has been taken, and homes, and so many of their kids whisked away into prisons, and their innocents killed and maimed by Israel, that he needs to do more than focus on a comparative loss of a finger nail clipping to the loss of one’s whole life? In the big picture, he’s a hypochondriac who whines over the whimpers of a terminal cancer patient. That’s the Jewish Israeli/American Israel Firster way. Time to boot them out as insane.

  8. Eva Smagacz
    Eva Smagacz
    March 12, 2012, 6:13 am

    msnbc website is slow in a really frustrating way.

  9. Pam
    Pam
    March 12, 2012, 8:06 am

    We should flood MSNBC with letters of support for Hayes…I am sure he is getting complaints from the other side, so let’s speak up!

    • seethelight
      seethelight
      March 12, 2012, 10:12 am

      Exactly right, Pam. Everyone, PLEASE, contact the show’s executive producer Jonathan Larsen via Twitter @JTLarsen and thank him for his courage to plan and carry out Sunday morning’s show. If anyone know’s Larsen’s email at MSNBC, please share it so more people can thank him. You can always write a letter to Larsen and Chris Hayes at MSNBC offices at 30 Rock.

      There must be some positive response to Sunday’s segment from viewers to counter the threatening calls and emails from the Lobby.

  10. Pat Carmeli
    Pat Carmeli
    March 12, 2012, 8:10 am

    My sister called me from the airport to urge me to turn on CSNBC. Hey, this was exciting stuff for so many reasons. I loved the way Chris Hayes allowed Bargouti the time to finish his full statements and especially was thrilled that they showed the map detailing Israeli settlements. We should all comment favorably on the show’s website.

  11. ahhiyawa
    ahhiyawa
    March 12, 2012, 8:58 am

    And the worm turns.

    This isn’t just Chris Hayes. There are undoubtedly tons of media journalists and pundits who would love to put on the show he did. Its that wall of powers within the mainstream media who self censor what the public reads and sees that’s beginning to crumble and shake underneath the Israeli/Zionist Lobby and their front groups in the US.

    This is infinitely far more powerful in its effects than Zionist control over the Congress. Too many people moan and groan over Israels influence on Capital Hill, not realizing that lobbyists and constituencies come and go, that today’s Congressional darlings usually windup becoming tomorrows annoyances or exasperation, especially when the ’30 pieces of silver’ is heavily backed by threats and attacks.

    Woe to Israel. Obama is not going to war for Israel and they have lost the support of the ‘national security state.’ It’s also a lie the American masses love Israel or that US & Israeli interests are one, besides riding an exceedingly uncertain horse to save their asses on Capitol Hill.

  12. OlegR
    OlegR
    March 12, 2012, 9:15 am

    A nice talk nothing unusual to my ear but maybe all of this talk is tabu in the US
    which is surprising to me.

    Meanwhile my girlfriend tells me that another grad rocket fell near a hospital in
    Ashdod (her sister works there).
    Beer Sheva where my parent live is targeted as well.
    About 30 grad hit since this morning some were deflected by Iron Dome
    some are falling in open territory.

    That’s the problem with the guys in Gaza they feel obliged to say the last word
    so they keep on firing till the last second before some truce takes effect
    risking that they actually get a “successful” hit and get
    the whole of Gaza into Cast Lead 2.0 something that nobody wants at the moment.

    • talknic
      talknic
      March 12, 2012, 9:51 am

      OlegR “Meanwhile my girlfriend tells me that another grad rocket fell near a hospital in Ashdod”

      The Southern part of Ashdod is in Palestine. It has never been legally annexed to Israel. http://wp.me/pDB7k-tM#isdud-vs-ashdod

      “Beer Sheva where my parent live is targeted as well”

      Be’er Sheva is not in Israel. It was never legally annexed either http://wp.me/pDB7k-tM#nonannexed-territories

      Best tell your friends to go live IN Israel.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      March 12, 2012, 11:15 am

      That’s the problem with the guys in Gaza they feel obliged to say the last word
      so they keep on firing till the last second before some truce takes effect
      risking that they actually get a “successful” hit and get
      the whole of Gaza into Cast Lead 2.0 something that nobody wants at the moment.

      Right Oleg. As your fellow sadist Mayhem argued in another thread, they should just be grateful Israel didn’t more more houses and kill more children and go away and wait for the next time Israel feel like bombing Gaza for no reason.

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        March 12, 2012, 9:23 pm

        Well perhaps they should be grateful. After all water, electricity and food is coming from Israel. And yet they are firing Grad missiles. Resistance my a.. This just a power game for the jihadists to show who has more balls to attack. Hence to receive more money from the supporters of the resistance movement. Cast Lead 2.0 would mean devastation to the civilians in Gaza and everyone know that- that is why Hamas hasn’t fired a single missile. Just it is a longer learning curve for Islamic Jihad- but I’m sure they’ll get there.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        March 12, 2012, 11:03 pm

        Well perhaps they should be grateful. After all water, electricity and food is coming from Israel.

        And why is the water, electricity and food is coming from Israel? Becasue:
        a. Israel has imposed a blockade on food comming into the territory
        b. Israel has destroyed Gaza’s civlian infrastructure, so that they are unable to provide they own water and electricity .

        You Zionists really should listen to yourselves once in a while. Perhaps even try the excrcise of reversing the circumstances between Israelis and Palestinians. Maybe then, the degree of sadism and collective siociopathy you display might become apparent to you.

        And yet they are firing Grad missiles. Resistance my a.. This just a power game for the jihadists to show who has more balls to attack.

        The only thing that sepeartes the Islmaic militants and Israeli leadership, is that the Israelis are in a position to make good on their threats. If the population in Gaza was armed with an ariforce of F16’s and other state of the art weaponry, you wouldn’t be displaying such a patrinizing and superior tone. You’d be taking such resistacne very seriously.

        You people are nothignmore than cowards with very big guns who think military superiority means moral authority and credibility.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 13, 2012, 3:58 am

        dimadok “Well perhaps they should be grateful. After all water, electricity and food is coming from Israel”

        Uh huh. Grateful for being under occupation. Grateful for being apportioned THEIR OWN water, from territories illegally acquired by war by Israel since 1948/49 .. You’re %&*ing hilarious. Israel is the Occupying Power If it chooses to strangle the Palestinian economy by imposing bans on imports, finances, the Palestinian ability to be self sufficient, BY LAW the Occupying Power must make up the shortfall

        Article 55 : To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate

        The Occupying Power, Israel, being a UN Member State, is bound to Chapt XI of the UN Charter. Israel has obligations

        “And yet they are firing Grad missiles. Resistance my a..”

        The Occupied may resist by any means available to them. It’s the law. Israel agreed to adhere to the law.

        “Cast Lead 2.0 would mean devastation to the civilians in Gaza.”

        But Israel does everything in its power to avoid civilian casualties, including having all means of escape from a war zone closed as it did in Cast Lead. They couldn’t even flee into the sea The only place they could go was … another place in the war zone. It’s illegal under the laws of war to prevent civilians from fleeing a war zone.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 13, 2012, 6:53 am

        “Resistance my a.. This just a power game for the jihadists to show who has more balls to attack. ”

        No, it’s about you Zios continuing the blockade of the Gazans for no reason than you apparently love to cause the death and destruction of the lives of innocent people, for sport.

  13. talknic
    talknic
    March 12, 2012, 9:44 am

    Shlomo Gazit is almost right “I don’t see the possibility of an Israeli government capable of taking the decision of removing [60-80,000 settlers so as to achieve a] border that can allow the establishment of a viable Palestinian state… It will be literally a civil war in Israel”

    Alas it will be OUTSIDE of Israel. Under the UN Charter, other regional powers will have the right to intervene as they did May 15th 1948. (which is why there was no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States Invasion of Palestine)

    He is right in that no Israeli government is capable of taking the decision to start a civil war. Civil war is feared by states more than any other war. No state, to the best of my knowledge, has ever started a civil war.

    He is wrong in his numbers for illegal settlers. Israel has never legally annexed any territory to it’s recognized sovereign territory. No state recognizes Israel beyond the ” frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ as Israel asked to be and was recognized. It is in fact millions of illegal settlers, though how many would depend upon the generosity of the Palestinians. Thus far, they have made incredible territorial concessions to Israel, none of which have been accepted.

    Were China to threaten to call in US debt unless the US drops the veto vote in the UNSC, we would soon see Israel face the law. Under the law, Israel would be sent bankrupt for decades. Israel must therefore reach an agreement with the Palestinians in order to circumvent the law, which rightfully falls in the Palestinians favour.

    One must also consider who else is gonna find ’emselves shafted by Israel’s illegal activities if a two state agreement is reached. You can bet they’ll be lobbying like crazy for a Greater Israel.

    • pabelmont
      pabelmont
      March 12, 2012, 8:12 pm

      talknic: “He is wrong in his numbers for illegal settlers.” Indeed. 60-80,000 is making a VERY pro-Israeli word-painting, a viewpoint based on a voluntary Israeli adjustment (of course, not a voluntary adjustment that Israel can make, with the settler political power being what it is). The true number of settlers, including east Jerusalem (and perhaps Golan Heights) is 650,000.

      People should JUMP DOWN HIS THROAT when he says 60-80,000, because it is a SNEAKY WAY to attempt to palm-off an Israeli view, NOT a legal view.

      the law, of course, doesn’t make much difference, because USA’s thumb is on the scales of justice; but if that thumb ever came off * * * the 650,000 number might become a REALLY big problem for Israel. (Hope it does, someday.)

  14. Denis
    Denis
    March 12, 2012, 10:28 am

    I agree with all of the comments pointing out Chris Hayes’ courage. It really does take courage, and that is outrageous when you think about it.

    Why in 21st century America, where the 1st Amend is still in effect, at least theoretically, does it take courage to speak out in a way that may be deemed critical of Israel?

    What does this guy, and other MSM pundits like him, have to be afraid of?

    Answer: Jews.
    As in Abe Foxman. Neocons. Alan Dershowitz or however he spells it.

    Answer: Idiots.
    The ones who will surely start screaming “anti-Semite!”

    Answer: Those in power in MSM
    The ones who can jerk him off the air in the wink of an eye.

    It reminds me of 1969 when a cop told me I had courage for dating a black woman. It was a veiled threat, of course, and I realized then what a fantasy the 1st Amendment really is. Chris Hayes needing courage is another example of the obvious.

    (BTW, I am a white male — sort of cream colored, actually. My reference to dating a black woman won’t make any sense unless I add that. Pink on the inside. )

  15. gracie fr
    gracie fr
    March 12, 2012, 10:28 am

    Perhaps Chris Hayes had the blinders lifted on a trip to Israel and the West Bank with a group of American journalists on a trip sponsored by the New America Foundation during the summer of 2010. He wrote a heartfelt article for The Nation, filled with his personal impressions. There is something about an eye witness encounter that really changes how one responds to the accusations and rhetoric of pro-Zionist commentary after a confrontation with facts on the ground.
    http://www.thenation.com/article/155400/postcard-palestine

    • seethelight
      seethelight
      March 12, 2012, 1:18 pm

      Exactly right, gracie fr. Because he had traveled to the West Bank, including Hebron, and was able to see for himself, he could push back with authority against Jennifer Mizrahi’s hasbara comments.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      March 13, 2012, 12:21 pm

      yep

  16. American
    American
    March 12, 2012, 12:03 pm

    This is good. Next I would like to see some American interest proponents vr some US Zionist Israel Firsters on a 2 hour long debate. Really good would be someone like Grant Smith who has all the dirty facts on Israel firstdom from the beginning to now.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      March 13, 2012, 12:21 pm

      Spent some time with Grant Smith at the Occupy Aipac conference. He Allison Weir, and Jeffrey Blankfort have done so much incredible research on Aipac, the conflict etc. Incredible resources. Was very sorry to hear that Jeffrey Blankfort was banned here at Mondoweiss. A real loss

  17. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    March 12, 2012, 1:14 pm

    Annie glad you are tuning into the MSM. Real strides taking place. Folks should not under estimate how pushing MSM outlets can have an effect. Chris Hayes producer is way way open to suggestions

    • March 13, 2012, 9:21 am

      kudos for your efforts, Kathleen, and Hayes’ producer may well be open to suggestions, but if you subject Hayes to a bit of critical analysis you’ll find he’s actually a zionist mouthpiece not much different from the rest.

      Hayes conceded in his opening words that he is “not embedded” in the topic — he is not a fully informed reported, and his commentary bore that out.

      Hayes’ producer probably knows that audiences tune out after the first few minutes. It is also slam dunk true that ‘he who frames the argument wins the debate.’ Ben Ami and Mizrahi dominated the first ten minutes of the opening segment — they framed the debate.

      Beside the fact that two Palestinians were chosen to discuss Iran, against two Jewish persons who are in essence on the same side of the coin regarding Israel, according to my back of the envelope analysis, Jabreal did not get the microphone until ~7 minutes into the segment and then she spoke defensively, not assertively. Her defensive argument was jumbled and obtuse, but nevertheless, Mizrahi cut her off less than a minute later and Mizrahi once again hammered away at her talking points. Mizrahi repeatedly used the phrase, “very clear” — “IAEA has been very clear . . .in saying the Iranians have been hiding . . .”

      Leila Hilal made sound statements, essentially saying, We are having the wrong discussion , but her presence was not forceful — certainly not a strong enough counterbalance to the red-clad kick-ass-take-charge Esther Mizrahi. Hilal’s opening statement –that both Israel and USA rhetoric is heavily freighted with electoral politics, was interrupted and undercut by Hayes, who turned Hilal’s argument into an opportunity to misrepresent Iran, whereupon Hilal conceded that she “cannot speak to” the state of Iranian political debate, but that did not stop her from echoing the same tired MSM “what we are hearing” non-analysis of Iranian political activity.
      None of the panelists has any clue what is going on in Iran’s politics, nor do they care; they only know that if you say “Ahmadinejad” the dog will salivate. Hilal rang the bell: “Ahmadinejad is increasingly isolated from the ayatollah.” She claimed “There is a lot of discontent in Iran, and Iran has faced its own kind of internal uprising and oppositional movement.” Really? Facts please, not unsupported generalities from someone who has already disqualified herself as an especially informed observer. But if it is true that ‘Ahmadinejad is isolated,
      the West should be concerned because Ahmadinejad is more inclined to reach out to the West than are other factions of Iran’s government.

      But none of that matters because after about 80 seconds, Hilal’s argument was swept aside by Hayes. He turned to Mizrahi — again and made totally disconnected statements, paying no regard to what Hilal had just said, and revolving around egregious emphasis of a prejudicial recounting of the Esther story. He further framed the argument as a false dilemma, and provided himself and Mizrahi one more opportunity to say, “Ahmadinejad said . . .wipe Israel . . .”

      I don’t know what program Phil was listening to that gave him this impression —

      “Hayes seems to endorse this view [that the debate is ‘irrational’ and Jews act out of fear] when he describes Netanyahu’s gift to Obama of the Purim chapter of the bible, and Netanyahu’s reported comment, “Even then they [Persians] wanted to wipe us out”;

      Here is what Hayes actually said:

      ” May I ask you Jennifer, You said that media reports to the contrary there’s actually a desire in the Israeli government to seek diplomacy. And there’s this report about Netanyahu giving the president the Book of Esther.
      Mizrahi: Right
      Hayes: —which is the Purim story of course in which it’s told they’re whispering into the ear of the Persian king who wants to destroy the Jews. And there’s a reported line he says, “Even then they wanted to wipe us out. ‘ He says — this was reported, it wasn’t said publicly by Netanyahu.
      My question to you is, Is it — there are two ways of considering Iran and Iran’s nuclear aspirations and Iran’s position to Israel. One is as, fundamentally, an existential threat, and you hear this all the time that Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map.

      Mizrahi: Right

      Hayes: And the other is a country with strategic esires and rational calculations as to its interests. It seems to me if you place it in the former camp it’s very difficult to conceive of a diplomatic solution because they’re essentially an implacable foe, whereas if you see them in the latter camp you can imagine that peace can possibly be made between the ayatollah and the Israeli state, as crazy as that may seem. { i.e. Hayes implies that thinking of Iran as “rational” is “crazy.”} Which of these two natures of the Iranian government do you see?”

      Mizrahi answers exactly as you would expect a right-wing ideologue who is tied directly to Netanyahu to answer: “It is very clear that Ahmadinejad has said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.”
      ding ding. dog salivates. opportunity not lost to demonize Iran and dehumanize one of the leaders in Iran who has attempted to move the Iranian polity closer to the West.

      What answer did Hayes expect from Mizrahi, to whom he pointedly addressed the question? If he expected a different answer, he is either delusional or has no appreciation of the point of view of his guests.

      Hayes was NOT talking about Israel’s “irrational fears,” as Phil suggests, he was casting Iran in the role of irrational actor. Hayes’ mention of the Purim story was gratuitous and disconnected from the context of his question to Mizrahi; it was red meat. By the way, an honest reporter would added a bit of explanation to the Esther story — that it is fictional; that the facts of history reveal that no such thing happened; that if such a thing did happen, 75,000 Persians were killed by Jews; that Persia is the one empire on the globe where Jews have lived in security and prosperity since 537 BCE to this day — but Hayes could not be bothered to fact-check his commentary. He even got the gist of the Esther story wrong — it was not the KING who plotted to “kill Jews,” but his prime minister.

      If this panel was so mahhvelously ‘balanced,’ who speaks for Iran?

      That’s just the first ten minutes, by which time first impressions/framing has been set and reinforced. Jabreal has heart but not an assassin’s cool jugular instincts. Her biggest moment was a gesture of complete exasperation, after which she left the stage (she returned later. )

      The finest segment was the last one, when Mustafa Barghouthi spoke, but not due to Hayes’s rhetoric; he once again framed a false dilemma; he re- opened the “pizza bombing” wound of a decade ago and pronounced the obligatory denunciation of Palestinian violence — lacking in any reference to Israel. Barghouti was forced to pack a great deal of information into a brief time; his speaking was too rapid and less easily understood than Hayes’ script-reading; the volume was lowered when Barghouti spoke; Mizrahi once again was given the opportunity to dominate the conversation and to drive home her talking points that “Iran is evil because Iran backs Hamas; Hamas is raining rockets on Israelis.”

      Mizrahi made a very clever, and if you’re an American, a devastating statement. Mizrahi justified the assassination of the jihad leader because he “had plotted to kidnap Shalit, had killed Jews in Eilat.” Barghouti countered that Israel had acted as “judge, jury, and executioner.” Mizrahi replied, “How is that different from the killing of bin Laden?” Nothing that Mizrahi says is fair or honest, but she does know how to insert the knife, and twist.

      Barghouthi responded that Israel’s actions “criminal,” and Israel’s actions in dominating West Bank “whenever it wants to” are “not the behavior of a civilized country.” This powerful statement came at the 15-minute mark of the last 18-minute segment of the 2-hour program. My guess is that the producers of Chris Hayes’ show are well aware that by that point, the vast majority of the audience has fallen asleep over their warm can of beer.

      Sorry Kathleen, and Phil. Just not that encouraged that MSM has any other agenda than All Zionist All the Time, even if a few Palestinian tokens are sprinkled in the chorus.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        March 13, 2012, 12:19 pm

        I think Hayes focus on the Esther story was to demonstrate how ridiculous this was. Now I will agree that Hayes allowed far too many unsubstantiated claims to be repeated but he did have Rula on who basically pounded on the fact that the illegal settlements keep expanding and the two state option has been closed by Israel.

        One thing I found so interesting was how Hayes let a complete contradiction by General Gazit get by with no challenges what so ever

        General Shlomo Gazit settlements “makes a two state solution almost impossible” Amazing that he went ahead and said this. But then went onto say that the way to resolve the conflict is for Israel to say that they will stop expanding illegal settlements but absolutely nothing about Israel dismantling any of the illegal settlements. Nothing. No concessions by Israel in that. No concessions at all.
        http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/11/10642860-you-think-our-politics-are-complicated-try-israels#comments

  18. Bill in Maryland
    Bill in Maryland
    March 12, 2012, 2:54 pm

    Speaking of brave efforts to re-establish balance in the MSM, Fareed Zakaria had a good show on CNN yesterday (3/11) that balanced fire-breathing Bret Stephens and Elliott Abrams off against Daniel Levy and Rula Jebreal. Notable to me was Levy’s calling out of Netanyahu’s manipulative use of holocaust imagery to “sell” the Iran threat to the American audience at the recent AIPAC meeting: (from the GPS transcript)

    ZAKARIA: Would you agree that most Israelis — do you think — I think what you are saying is that in a way Netanyahu is trying to change the subject from a topic where Israelis are really concerned, which is social unrest?

    DANIEL LEVY, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: This is a fantastic distraction issue. Both in terms of domestic, social, and economic issues and, of course, in terms of internationally the Palestinian issue.

    For an Israeli leader to come to the United States, make a load of speeches, not mention the Palestinians, a dramatic success in his terms for his right wing coalition. This is top-down driven. Not bottom-up inside Israel.

    The kind of speech that the prime minister gave in Washington, holocaust analogies, everywhere, he hasn’t made that speech in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. He was criticized for doing that. The opposition leader said it was scare mongering, it was hysteria, it was shameful use of the holocaust.

  19. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    March 12, 2012, 6:22 pm

    “I’m not sure if this is a breakthrough for the MSM yet, but it shows that the liberal firewall of uncondtional support for Israel is breaking down. And it’s being led by Gentiles. Just like Jews led the Civil Rights struggle back here at home”

    I disagree. It’s obvious that blacks led the Civil Rights Movement and that there was essential support for it on the part of many whites including strong support from American Jews. The challenge to American support for Israel is, in my view, being lead by by both Jews and Gentiles. I see a leading role for Jews, not a supporting one, and this comes as no surprise because, with so much at stake, Jews are more invested in Zionist ideology than are most Gentiles.

  20. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    March 12, 2012, 8:16 pm

    Civil war in Israel? Of course not. They simply will roll over and play dead, letting the settlers do what they want. (Just as USA rolls over to AIPAC).

    If Israel is ever to get out of the occupied territories, it will need HELP, and that help will be a very tough international coalition which changes Israel’s EXTERNAL SITUATION (trade, travel, diplomacy, culture, sport) until the ONLY DEMOCRACY’s voters see the light. Not exactly voluntary, but possibly avoiding civil war. think major, major BDS.

  21. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    March 12, 2012, 8:27 pm

    MSNBC / Up w/ Chris Hayes has a CONTACT at:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/

  22. Polly
    Polly
    March 12, 2012, 11:01 pm

    This was a landmark event on this issue and proves that there is PLENTY of knowledge out there even if there is an unwillingness to actually utter the words.
    Even if Chris Hayes does a complete backflip on this issue next week it won’t undo everything this achieved.
    The parting message from Barghouti is key for me – that he is willing to accept a POLITICAL solution even if peace is not part of the deal.

  23. powzon
    powzon
    March 13, 2012, 5:02 pm

    At the beginning of the segment with Shlomo Gazit, around 1:25, Hayes says ‘intifada’ with a decent stab at Arabic inflection…hmm…

  24. Bill in Maryland
    Bill in Maryland
    March 18, 2012, 7:41 pm

    Ugh. Just saw that the odious Jennifer Lazlo Mizrahi (Founder and President, The Israel Project) who was on Chris Hayes’ show is being featured at the J Street conference this coming weekend. Why would J Street include this master hasbarista if they are trying to build credibility?

Leave a Reply