Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ serves as echo chamber for Israeli hawks, quoting 7 on Iran, plus 2 Israel lobbyists

on 39 Comments

A frontpage New York Times piece yesterday about the Iranian threat served as an echo chamber for hawkish Israeli opinion. The piece quoted seven Israelis and two Americans closely associated with the Israel lobby, almost all arguing that Iran is an “existential threat” to Israel and pushing for the US to threaten war on Iran. 

The piece’s message:

“If the U.S. makes it clear to the Iranians that they may go to war, there will be no need for anyone to go to war,” one top Israeli official said.

And this:

a nuclear weapon, which virtually every leader here regards as an existential threat

Yes, the piece was datelined Jerusalem and concerned the Israeli government’s response to the latest IAEA report; but why do twitchy Israelis get such a frontpage platform in our media?

When the issue is another war in the Middle East, why should Americans only hear from: Ari Shavit, Yossi Melman, Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon (on twitter), Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (on television), “a senior government official here”, “a senior government official,” “one top Israeli official,” and Uzi Arad, a former national security adviser for Israel.

As a bonus, the piece also quoted two Israel lobbyists: David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Martin S. Indyk of Brookings.

Shouldn’t the Times have to state that Brookings is funded by Indyk’s good friend Haim Saban, a former Israeli who is an ardent supporter of Israel? Shouldn’t it state that the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which was spun off by AIPAC, is widely seen as ferociously pro-Israel? Shouldn’t it state that Uzi Arad has worked with the Washington Institute?

The Times didn’t quote Israeli leaders who say that Iran is not an existential threat. Nor the Israelis who say that Netanyahu and Barak have lost their sense of reality and can’t be trusted.

More to the point: When do American realists get their turn? When will American experts be quoted who say Iran can be contained, or that Israel should give up its nukes? What about the Indians who live with the Pakistani threat, and vice versa– can we hear from them? And aren’t Pakistani nukes a far greater threat to world peace?

This reminds me of the Times turning over its magazine to an Israeli journalist to argue for war; the Times is determined to serve as an echo chamber for the Israeli military establishment.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

39 Responses

  1. annie on September 1, 2012, 1:06 pm

    When do American realists get their turn?

    when american realists own media.

  2. Krauss on September 1, 2012, 1:32 pm

    Interesting, Phil, my thought was something like this:

    This is an editorial masquerading as a 'news story'.

    It’s Sanger who is behind it. Once I was done reading the story, I clicked on his name and browsed the archive. He’s been writing Iran stories for months now. He’s like the NYT version of Jeff Goldberg.

    People ask why the U.S. can’t break free of it’s stifling embrace of Israel; I say, look no further than Jews like Sanger who is very much an ethnonationalist and is using his career to promote Israel’s interest, just like Goldberg or Chait(although Chait does it to a much lesser extent).


    I read an interview with Sanger which was conduected at the beginning of Obama’s term. He basically said that Europe was in for a rude surprise in Afghanistan because he felt the U.S. did most of the heavy lifting and he implied that not only would Obama slap them down, but Sanger approved of it.

    This made me ask myself, halfamused; would Sanger approve of Obama getting to grips with Israel, which is doing far worse than being lazy in Afghanistan?

    My guess is no, I don’t think he approves and his newsstory is a direct attempt to undermine Obama and promote the Likudnik line of ‘we need war now with Iran’.

    His story is, as you pointed out, a who’s who of AIPAC.
    A lot of those people are probably part of his social circles, if not his own personal friends.

    It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Sanger personally donated to AIPAC every year.

  3. Citizen on September 1, 2012, 2:27 pm

    We use to have around 40 or 50 companies who produced our mainstream media–what is it now, six corporations? And who owns the essentially controlling shares of those?

    • annie on September 1, 2012, 2:32 pm

      i read somewhere a few years ago there were only around 18 people who determined what went into the msm. some board they all sit on.

      • Taxi on September 2, 2012, 5:31 am

        Before we went to Shock and Awe Iraq and it’s poor suffering people, we had what was known as the ‘Big Five’ broadcasters – all briefed by the Pentagon before we attacked Iraq.

        As of 2010, we’ve had THE BIG FOUR: The Walt Disney Company is the largest media conglomerate in the US, News Corporation, Time Warner and Viacom ranking second, third and fourth respectively.

        “In nations described as authoritarian by most international think-tanks and NGOs like Human Rights Watch (China, Cuba, Russia), media ownership is generally something very close to the complete state control over information in direct or indirect ways.”

      • seanmcbride on September 2, 2012, 11:57 am

        Taxi wrote:

        “As of 2010, we’ve had THE BIG FOUR: The Walt Disney Company is the largest media conglomerate in the US, News Corporation, Time Warner and Viacom ranking second, third and fourth respectively.”

        To what degree are the CEOs, board members and upper-level management of these four corporations influenced by pro-Israel sympathies? How many of these people are Likud Zionists? How much money have they contributed as private citizens to various components of the Israel lobby?

        These strike one as legitimate (and urgent) questions to ask and an issue to investigate in depth. Much of the time the mainstream media behave as a propaganda arm of the Israeli government. Why is this the case?

      • Taxi on September 2, 2012, 1:58 pm

        We’re on the same page: earlier I emailed annie at MW and made the exact suggestion you did regarding investigating the Big Four up-close and personal.

        But now I’m thinking YOU should do it, Sean. You’re an excellent researcher and a masterful list maker!

        Get connecting the dots and educate us all!

      • American on September 2, 2012, 4:55 pm

        Do it Sean.
        To start you off….Sam Zell uber, uber zionist and slash and burn capitalist mobster, the Tribune media mogul, a string of RE failures he extracted billions from and left investors broke and properties underwater.

        Then we have the extreme right Clear Channel that went on a buying spree after deregulation and later ran into Romney’s Bain Capital which almost bankrupted it. LOL

        Private Equity Insider Talks Bain Capital Like It Really Is

        Consider Bain Capital’s Thomas Lee Partners’ $26 billion acquisition of Clear Channel Communications — home of Rush Limbaugh — and his $400 million, eight-year syndication deal inked in 2008. This takeover has turned a company that formerly earned net income of nearly $1 billion into a money-loser (almost $4.7 billion in cumulative losses), resulted in thousands of layoffs, extracted millions in fixed management fees, and recently resulted in a multi-billion special dividend for the two PE owners paid for by highly risky borrowing.

        According to Clear Channel’s most recent quarterly statement, Bain Capital and Thomas Lee signed an MSA with Clear Channel through 2018 to “management and financial advisory services at a rate not greater than $15 million per year, plus reimbursable expenses.” For the first quarter of 2012, those fees totaled $4 million.

        Clear Channel’s liabilities exceed the value of its assets by $7.8 billion. Simply put, Clear Channel has a negative net worth of nearly $8 billion. And that is thanks mostly to its $20.3 billion in debt — about $15 billion of which was taken on to Clear Channel’s balance sheet to finance its acquisition by Bain and Lee.

        In 2007, the year before the takeover, Clear Channel’s net worth was $8.3 billion. But to complete the deal in July 2008, Bain and Lee loaded up Clear Channel with debt. Each of the two put up $450 million for the deal with investors injecting another $2.1 billion. They assumed $5 billion in debt and paid $18 billion — borrowing $15 billion more.

        And The New York Times reports that each firm “earned about $43 million in so-called transaction fees for their roles as bankers in the deal. They passed on two-thirds of those fees to their investors.”

        Of course, the cash to pay those fees has to come from somewhere. So Clear Channel decided to cut staff. As of December 2011, the New York Times reported that the company had canned 2,500 people. And rumors of more layoffs abounded in March 2012.

        But that’s nothing compared to the unsecured $656 million loan that Clear Channel Communications subsidiary — billboard advertiser, Clear Channel Outdoors (CCO), made to its parent. That loan so depleted CCO’s cash reserves that it was forced to borrow $2 billion more to pay Bain Capital and Thomas Lee a so-called special dividend of $2.2 billion, or $6.08 cents a share.

        Since the PE-owned parent company is so laden with debt, the $656 million, 9.25% rate loan likely won’t get repaid — attracting a lawsuit from minority shareholders who argued that the terms of the loan were nearly half the 17.5% open market rate.

        That rate is needed to compensate for the tiny chance of repayment. According to Reuters, “unsecured loans to Clear Channel were rated C/RR6, below which lies restricted default. (C means “default is imminent or inevitable, or the issuer is in standstill” and RR6 indicates 0% to 10% of the loan is likely to be recovered if Clear Channel defaults.)

        It’s really easy to make a profit for equity holders if you can convince banks to lend you $4 for every $1 of your own money you invest in a takeover. Granted that is not as high as the 50:1 ratios of debt to equity that collapsed the financial system in 2008.

        Bain Capital uses debt to control assets with other peoples’ money and uses those assets to borrow even more to pay itself a multi-billion dollar dividend. If the company goes bankrupt in the process, Bain Capital has already extracted plenty.

        Page 12« Previous Page

        Bain’s mo is why I said elsewhere that Romney is just as liable to be suckering the zios as they are to run him. Romney is just like them.

    • ColinWright on September 1, 2012, 3:28 pm

      “We use to have around 40 or 50 companies who produced our mainstream media–what is it now, six corporations? And who owns the essentially controlling shares of those?”

      But that ‘mainstream media’ used to be virtually the only media — it dominated the market far more than it does today. Now, there are almost literally an infinity of outlets — witness this site.

      So saying six corporations dominate the field rather than forty or fifty is like pointing out that there are only six harness makers still in business rather than forty or fifty: they’re dominating a rapidly shrinking market. Lots of people have started driving cars.

      Forty years ago, there was effectively the local paper and whatever news programs were on offer on TV.

      Today, when I go to check out the news, I typically scan the headlines at the NYT, do the same at the BBC, then go to Ha’aretz and Ma’an, perhaps see if al Jazeera can fill out anything of interest, and then come by here. Your big six may rule the pond — but it’s not the only pond any more.

      • Ranjit Suresh on September 2, 2012, 1:59 am

        Ok, but the media business in America consolidated to that six companies or thereabouts well before the decline of the industry in the face of the Internet and financial crash. It culminated in the 1990’s – the 1996 Telecommunications Act was a milestone in that process. The timeline is that it consolidated years before newspapers and magazines started going under.

        Meanwhile, even though the press is in a difficult financial position, ideological hegemony (to use a Gramscian Marxist turn of phrase) is still decisively managed by the media and entertainment industries.

        When the average Joe knows about the Israel lobby, let alone who Rachel Corrie was or about the U.S.S. Liberty, we’ll know there’s been a paradigm shift. Today we have a growing collection of niches on the web that serve only small minorities of the population.

      • traintosiberia on September 2, 2012, 1:11 pm

        The importance of these 6 or so or 50 or so media (MSM) lie in the success of the ferocity by which policy pushers force the policy makers to accept what the warmongers and the business corps demand They also sit down with Obama and have done the same with Bush.They get to ask Obama ,Romney,Bernake, Indyk, Ross and other questions .They get to add the aura of respect, knowledge,and discretion. They are cited and looked for corroboration. This is not happening in internet media. That’s why when Bolton is asked if he were a terrorist like Saddam for alleged links to MEK ( as Bush defined Saddam) , he does not get booted out of convention or denied TV appearances .He still can expect a position in Romney’s cabinet. This concern will not be discussed in confirmation process just as more sinister implications of treason were not discussed in the confirmations of Bush appointees. Internet does not drive election here ( it does in other countries as US has affirmed the importance of Twitters and Facebook and other media )
        The only solution to this issue is to hold their feet to the fire all the time and always ( media ) making them culpable of intentional damages of property,peace,and of society arising out of inaccurate and false changes of public perception of any issue generated by the media. The law has to change and it will one day.

      • Les on September 2, 2012, 8:12 pm

        As Jewish as that media is at the top, doesn’t explain why 100% are not members of the Jewish Voice for Peace crowd. How can that 100% be explained?

    • MRW on September 2, 2012, 6:13 am

      Reagan’s admin deregulated the news business. From of the Museum of Broadcast Communications:

      The arrival of the Reagan Administration and FCC Chairman Mark Fowler in 1981 marked a further shift to a fundamental and ideologically-driven reappraisal of regulations long held central to national broadcasting policy. Ensuing years saw removal of many long-standing rules resulting in an overall reduction in FCC oversight of station and network operations. Congress grew increasingly wary of the pace of deregulation, however, and began to slow the FCC’s deregulatory pace by the late 1980s.

      Specific deregulatory moves–some by Congress, others by the FCC–included (a) extending television licenses to five years from three in 1981; (b) expanding the number of television stations any single entity could own grew from seven in 1981 to 12 in 1985 (a situation under consideration for further change in 1995); (c) abolishing guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment programming in 1985; (d) elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987; (e) dropping, in 1985, FCC license guidelines for how much advertising could be carried; (f) leaving technical standards increasingly in the hands of licensees rather than FCC mandates; and (g) deregulation of television’s competition (especially cable which went through several regulatory changes in the decade after 1983).

      Deregulatory proponents do not perceive station licensees as “public trustees” of the public airwaves required to provide a wide variety of services to many different listening groups. Instead, broadcasting has been increasingly seen as just another business operating in a commercial marketplace which did not need its management decisions questioned by government overseers. Opponents argue that deregulation violates key parts of The Communications Act of 1934–especially the requirement to operate in the public interest–and allows broadcasters to seek profits with little public service programming required in return.

      The former rules were in place to protect the public airwaves for the public. Corporations couldn’t own all the media outlets in a market, even with separate names, the way the six do now. That was never allowed. I lived off the park near ABC Cap Cities on the Upper Westside at the time and I remember sitting beside Cap Cities execs at a bar across the street from their offices on Columbus. They were crowing about what deregulation was going to do for them, the markets they could go into. But the pricier guys imbibed at the Cafe des Artistes on 67th that had a cozy bar at the back, populated with Julliard types and stockbrokers on the way home. That’s where I heard how (political) donor money would get the job done.

      The latest nail in the coffin came in 1996 under Clinton.

      How did this happen? The public wasn’t paying attention, never knew what they had, and it was taken from them.

      • American on September 2, 2012, 3:54 pm

        Clinton was indeed the crowning blow. This best describes how it all went down.

        Thursday, Jun 28, 2001 03:30 PM EDT
        One big happy channel?

        The Telecommunications Reform Act handed over control of the radio airwaves to a chosen few. Will TV be next?
        By Eric Boehlert
        Pomp and circumstance ruled at the signing into law of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Held inside the rotunda of the Library of Congress, a bill-signing first, the ceremony featured an array of bipartisan legislators praising the comprehensive package. Newly appointed Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich heralded the act as a jobs and knowledge bill. Vice President Al Gore stressed how public interest was central to the telecommunications revolution.
        After speaking by videoconference with students at Calvin Coolidge High School in Washington, Gore watched as President Clinton signed the bill using the same pen President Eisenhower did in 1957 to sign the bill that created the interstate highway system, which had been written by ex-Sen. Gore, D-Tenn., the vice president’s father. Clinton then used a digital pen to sign an electronic copy to be posted on the Internet.
        In his remarks that day Clinton boasted that the “landmark legislation fulfills my administration’s promise to reform our telecommunications laws in a manner that leads to competition and private investment, promotes universal service and provides for flexible government regulation.”
        Five years later nobody doubts that the law was indeed a landmark — not only because congressional efforts to update the country’s vast communications industries for the first time since the 1930s had themselves dragged on through the ’80s and well into the ’90s but also because the Telecom Act, as it became known, unleashed unprecedented deregulation and media consolidation, among the most pronounced in American history.
        Nowhere has that consolidation been more acutely felt than in radio — where just two companies, Clear Channel and Infinity, now dominate the nation’s commercial radio stations. The result, many longtime radio industry observers feel, has been the degradation of commercial radio as a creative, independent medium.
        But Clear Channel and Infinity are also raking in the cash. So now the question is, who’s next? Because just across the broadcast spectrum, big owners in the television industry are looking at what happened to radio and licking their lips. If they get their way, the same thing that happened to radio may well happen to TV: more consolidation, more homogenization and, of course, more profits for the few at the top.
        Continue Reading

        In addition….there was a loud public outcry against it that was totally ignored by FCC chairman Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell, appointed Chairman thru Poppa’s right of political nepotism .
        750,00 letters of protest from the public ignored. That’s probably a record for public protest against something. Michael went on to a high paid job in lobbying for them just like Scully the chair of the Med D legistation went to to a high paid job lobbying for the drug industry.
        The chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell pushed for media deregulation, the argu-ment being that old media regu-lations, which prohibited companies from owning both a TV and radio station or newspaper in the same market, are restrictive.
        Democratic FCC commis-sioner Jonathan Adelstein was also against the regulations and said: “I’m afraid a dark cloud is looming over the future of American media.” He revealed that the majority of the 750,000 letters that flooded the commission were in fact opposed to further media mergers. There is no denying then, that there was a blatant disregard for the public opinion on the part of the FCC heads.
        Not to mention that the new methods of communication available today, like internet, direct satellite, and cable are not accessible to the majority of American viewers, so the news they receive is limited.”

        Hey folks….if you want to do something about all this….there’s only one way….BWTTGASO.

      • MRW on September 2, 2012, 10:24 pm

        What does BWTTGASO mean?

      • Shmuel on September 3, 2012, 2:17 am

        What does BWTTGASO mean?

        Burn Washington to the ground and start over.

        ♫ Yes sir, I can Google, Google woogle, all night looong ♫

      • MRW on September 7, 2012, 9:37 pm

        ♫ Yes sir, I can Google, Google woogle, all night looong ♫

        I dids Google, Massah, honest I dids.

        Except it’s through a proxy on my machine and I ain’t gettin’ diddly these days without going to the second page of 100 returns.

        Since I don’t have email notification selected, only saw this now by chance.

  4. just on September 1, 2012, 3:02 pm
  5. Citizen on September 1, 2012, 3:04 pm

    Here’s Wiki’s “fair and balanced” view of Sulzberger Family’s NYT on this issue:

    “For its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, some have claimed that the paper is pro-Palestinian; and others have claimed that it is pro-Israel.[97][98] The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, alleges that The New York Times sometimes criticizes Israeli policies but is not even-handed and is generally pro-Israel.[99] On the other hand, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has criticized The New York Times for printing cartoons regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were claimed to be anti-Semitic.[100]”

    A la Annie’s comment that we’d have no objective coverage on Israel until American realists get their turn at it. Wiki equates M & W credentials with Wiesenthal Ctr credentials.

    Reminds me, if you recall, back in ’03 there were literally thousands of protesters in the streets protesting against Bush Jr’s suddenly announced war on Iran, and our mainstream media, under the banner of “fair and balanced,” showed some video of those thousands of protesters “balanced” with some video of a dozen or so cheering on that war, all edited and narrated as if the John Q Public numbers were the same or nearly so, pro and con. Remember that?

    We are programmed by 6 gigantic media corporations. Bread and Circuses. And many in our Congress are doing their best to cut off the internet as an alternate source for facts–under the guise of national security and patent rights protection.

    • Ranjit Suresh on September 2, 2012, 2:04 am

      Wikipedia is a fantastic idea. The problem is that an ecosystem like Wikipedia, driven by thousands of individual contributors, only works when those contributors are genuine free agents. It only works when they are, in fact, individuals.

      It doesn’t function properly when a collective of people operate in coordination to promote their groups interests, irrespective of Enlightenment notions of truth and intellectual integrity.

      The same, alas, can be said for finance, the media, academia, and a myriad of other industries. They work in theory – when meritocracy reigns. In practice, we have vigorous nepotism and ethnocentric favoritism.

  6. Citizen on September 1, 2012, 3:10 pm

    Here’s Wiki’s “fair and balanced report on US media coverage of the I-P conflict:

    “According to pro-Israel watchdog groups
    In its “Critical Thinking: Can You Trust Everything You Read?” article, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America(CAMERA) explains:[5]
    “Factual errors can be errors of omission or commission. Omission means that something important was not said, and as a result, readers are misled. In errors of commission, the reporter gives information which is not true.”
    In its “Understanding Bias” article, Honest Reporting asks the following questions pertaining to omission:[6]
    “Was the reporting one-sided and imbalanced?”
    “Was key information missing (selective omission)?”

    According to pro-Palestinian watchdog groups
    In a 2001 study done by FAIR, only 4% of the US media mentioned that an occupation by Israel is occurring.[7] In an update to the study, the number has reportedly gone down to only 2% of the media mentioning an occupation.[8] The 2001 figure is also seen in the documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land.[7]
    In its “Media critique quick sheet”, Palestine Media Watch asks the following questions pertaining to omission:[9]
    “How many times were UN reports/findings/resolutions mentioned?”
    “How many times were Human Rights reports/findings/statements mentioned?”
    “Did the story describe official Palestinian denials/pleas of ignorance and innocence in violent acts?”
    “Did the story describe official Israelis denials/pleas of ignorance and innocence in violent acts?””

  7. Citizen on September 1, 2012, 3:14 pm

    Here’s an update with details on how US mainstream news slavishly supports Israeli hasbara:

  8. ahmed on September 1, 2012, 4:52 pm

    Do Iranians ever a turn to speak?

  9. ahmed on September 1, 2012, 4:52 pm

    Oops, get a turn to speak.

  10. DICKERSON3870 on September 1, 2012, 4:55 pm

    RE: “Shouldn’t the Times have to state that Brookings is funded by Indyk’s good friend Haim Saban, a former Israeli who is an ardent supporter of Israel?” ~ Weiss

    ALSO SEE: “Haim Saban”, by Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic, June 10, 2007

    (excerpt) If you’re interested in the foreign policy views of major Hillary Clinton financial backer Haim Saban, there’s no need to follow the Atrios path of attempting guilt by association with Kenneth Pollack. He discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a reasonably recent interview with ‘Haaretz’:

    When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger . . .

    SOURCE –

  11. DICKERSON3870 on September 1, 2012, 5:11 pm

    RE: “Shouldn’t the Times have to state that Brookings is funded by Indyk’s good friend Haim Saban, a former Israeli who is an ardent supporter of Israel? Shouldn’t it state that the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which was spun off by AIPAC, is widely seen as ferociously pro-Israel? Shouldn’t it state that Uzi Arad has worked with the Washington Institute?” ~ Weiss

    “LONG STORY SHORT” (AS FOX NEWS’ NANCY GRACE LOVES TO SAY): Not if they have the ultimate goal of Manufacturing Consent (and maximizing profits), silly rabbit human! (And anyway, Trix® is for kids!™)
    And let’s not forget that for many of the readers/viewers/listeners of the corporate/mainstream media in the U.S., the “Jewish State of Israel” is a “much-loved surrogate homeland and ethnic status symbol” (to borrow from Howard Sachar)!

  12. American on September 1, 2012, 6:48 pm

    Has the NYT attacked General Dempsey yet? Anyone noticed anything on Dempsey?

    Something else interesting. Dempsey has been saying the same thing to Israel all along, even before saying ‘I won’t be complicit’ and Netanyahu and other Israelis have called him a tool of Iran and public insults. Ex…back in Feb. ..

    BUT….Dempsey hasn’t changed a thing he is saying despite the Israeli screaming. What we hear is the military position and Obama’s position.

    So neither US command or Obama is caving despite Israel pressure.
    If O isn’t caving now it’s unlikely he will cave after the election.

    • traintosiberia on September 2, 2012, 10:50 am

      American-“won’t be complicit’ and Netanyahu and other Israelis have called him a tool of Iran and public insults”

      This remind one the accusation of antisemtism against those who opposed mentioning of Israel in 1919 Paris peace process and the same charges against Churchill and later to Truman for not exactly toeing the Zionist drawn line and of similar recent charges against bloggers and authors for not accepting the neocon-WaPo-Fox-NYT lines the Iranian threat .

      I am sure I will find the reference if I suspect that El Baredi of IAEA was also called a stooge of Iran by the neocons or was painted with some “irrational “motive like being a muslim behind his position on Iran.

    • traintosiberia on September 2, 2012, 10:54 am

      Will Dempsey follow the trajectory of Petreus ? One hopes not.
      Already Israel is preparing the ground : “A senior Israeli official on Saturday told the Jerusalem Post he was confused by recent statements from US military chief Gen. Martin Dempsey the US would not support an Israeli strike on Iran.”

  13. CTuttle on September 1, 2012, 10:27 pm

    Aloha, Phil, Annie, and all…! I’m stoked I was just front-paged at FDL… Debunking The Latest IAEA Report on Iran… Hat tips all around…! *g*

  14. traintosiberia on September 2, 2012, 10:07 am

    This is the same newspaper who in a recent editorial castigated Ms Rice for providing falsehood and fear to make war against Iraq without ever mentioning its own effort,role,and encouragement along with providing the rationale for all three.
    Now it nicely and conveniently forgetting to mention Pletka of AEI who openly claimed otherwise and spelled the bin regarding the significance of an Iranian nuclear capability on Israeli hegemony vs existential crisis .That did not provoke a denial ,neither a charges of antisemitism from the Israeli,American.or European harem of incestuous Neocons (There are so many in-laws and ex – in that cohabiting harem ). Subsequently one of the Israeli Neocons positively expanded on that fear of losing the ever growing bargaining power of Israel (the power at military , US Congressional and Presidential level while across Atlantic the same position have been established and bolstered after the same Iraq war brought on by who NY Times fails to mention -the neocons .).
    This raises a pertinent question .Will NY Times blame someone else for the ongoing
    slow and downward spiraling of Iarnain society ? Will it blame someone else for the destruction of Iranaian people? Will it conveniently forget to mention the role of the neocons who made the war with Iran possible ? Will it blame some careerist who may decide to grasp the hint from the neoocns and plunge the country in more direct war of aggression? Yes the career that WaPo has reminded the Americans not to forget.

  15. traintosiberia on September 2, 2012, 11:10 am

    So the valid question is this :Will the charges of antisemitism fly like cockroaches when the Americans were reminded the pivotal role the neoocns played in the creation of bitter and hostile memories of Iranian against Americans?
    Or will they blame the Saudis,Qataris,election politics of US,cheap oil,and some “Curveball” waiting for reduction of sentences in an American court or for clemency against deportation from Germany? Will they blame the intelligence failures of UN agencies or of US intelligence services or the both ?

  16. seafoid on September 2, 2012, 11:15 am

    The FT last December ran a piece on Israel and Iran. Oil traders reckoned an Israeli attack on Iran would push the oil price up to $175 per barrel. That would kill the global recovery. It would be blamed on guess what religious group.

    I got to read the German tabloid Bild last week. they covered the 1972 Olympics where 11 Israeli hostages were killed. The Israelis released some docs recently- they were furious with most of the Germans. Nobody outside Israel or the Zionist colonies of the US cares about Zionist paranoia . Nobody buys the crap that one Jewish fingernail is worth 600 Arabs (or Persians).

    Here the haaretz link to the same

    Then-Mossad chief Zvi Zamir was highly critical of the way the German security forces operated during the deadly attack on Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. ‘They did not make the most minimal effort.’

  17. Les on September 2, 2012, 11:35 am

    Readers of the Times should be asking themselves if the Ochs and Sulzberger families who own the paper, are ignorant of such “reporting” or if it truly represents their honest opinions.

  18. Walker on September 2, 2012, 4:26 pm

    Shouldn’t the Times have to state that Brookings is funded by Indyk’s good friend Haim Saban, a former Israeli who is an ardent supporter of Israel? Shouldn’t it state that the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which was spun off by AIPAC, is widely seen as ferociously pro-Israel?

    Indyk founded WINEP.

  19. Donald on September 3, 2012, 8:25 pm

    “When do American realists get their turn? When will American experts be quoted who say Iran can be contained, or that Israel should give up its nukes? What about the Indians who live with the Pakistani threat, and vice versa– can we hear from them? And aren’t Pakistani nukes a far greater threat to world peace?”

    I only glanced at the comment section so I don’t know if anyone else pointed this out, but there’s a really obvious group that everyone in the US press ignores on this Israel/Iran question–the Palestinians.

    If Israel really is in danger from a future Iranian nuke, then so are the Palestinians, unless Iranian nukes have this magical property of only killing Zionists. Yet I’ve never seen anyone ask Palestinians what they think of the “existential threat” that they presumably face from an Iranian nuke.

Leave a Reply