Trending Topics:

Former ‘NYT’ reporter says Times should assign non-Jews to cover Israel/Palestine

Israel/Palestine
on 52 Comments
Haberman

Haberman

Several folks have sent along a sharp interview in Haaretz of Clyde Haberman, a veteran correspondent for The New York Times who left the paper in December, in which Haberman tells Chemi Shalev that Jewish reporters are increasingly being replaced by Asians in the trenches of journalism.

But I’ve focused on Haberman’s comments about the Times. First, he says that the Times should assign non-Jews to report from Jerusalem.

“Throughout my career,” he says, “I’ve had my fair share of “you’re an idiot” letters, but many more letters of praise as well. Israel is the only assignment I ever had in which in four years I never once got a letter that said “nice job.” If I would have gotten one, I would have had it embossed and put it on a wall, like a business does with the first dollar bill it makes.”

This, he says, is the lot of most New York Times’ reporters in Israel, as well as other prominent American journalists who have agreed to an Israel posting. I ask whether sending a Jewish reporter is hence a good or bad idea. “All other things being equal,” he replies, “it is probably better to send a non-Jew rather than a Jew – just as I would probably prefer to send a non-Indian to India. It’s better to avoid that extra component.”

But when I point out that a majority of the Times’ representatives in Israel in the past 30 years have, in fact, been Jewish, Haberman says: “You may be surprised to learn that there aren’t as many correspondents clamoring for the job as Israelis would like to think. Every Times person in Israel has been subjected to non-stop assault. People realize that it entails a lot of scrutiny, grief and verbal abuse.”

I’d point out that Haberman, who is Jewish, is counting Jews. By my count, the last three correspondents in Jerusalem have been Jewish. Though Alison Weir of the Council for the National Interest says that the last five have been Jewish– “a member of the family,” in her pointed phrasing. Because of such concerns, years ago, in its non-Zionist days, the Times used to insist that non-Jews be assigned to Jerusalem. Also note that Max Blumenthal, while not counting Jews, said that the Times bureau is thoroughly inside the Zionist narrative.

Here’s the second bit from Haberman, where he says that the noisy critics of the Times coverage are all Israel-supporting Jews who call the Times correspondents self-hating Jews. Haberman is clearly out of date here. Jodi Rudoren and Ethan Bronner before her have been attacked from the left, from Palestinian solidarity types, as much as they are attacked from the pro-Israel side. But Haberman’s comments point up an issue we’ve landed on: The Times is old guard, and it is extremely responsive to rightwing critics.  Haberman:

“We’ve had decades of correspondents that, no matter how different they’ve been one from the other, no matter how talented they are or how many Pulitzer Prizes they have to their name, always end up being accused of being either anti-Semites or self-hating Jews. At some point, this seeps into the DNA of the newspaper: This is what you can expect if you go there – to have your integrity hurled back in your face every single day.”

And things are probably much worse now, Haberman concedes, because of internet and emails and the ability to instantly respond and protest. Not only that, he adds, but Muslims and Arabs, in general, and Palestinians, in particular, have also adopted “the same ‘beat the newspaper over the head’ format that Jewish groups have come to perfect.”

After a while it became clear to me, he adds drily, “that if I didn’t want to be accused of hating Israel, I should start every story with: ‘50 years after 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, Israel yesterday did one thing or the other.’”

Curiously, Shalev doesnt touch on Haberman’s most famous moment at the Times, a fabrication that got him fired in ’66, as a kid, when everyone still read The Sun Also Rises. Some things are hard to live down.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

52 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    January 20, 2014, 12:03 pm

    So, (somewhat reading between the lines, or outright fantasizing by this commenter) we are asked to believe that pro-Israel, anti-Palestine reporting is a result, in significant part, of a culture that oppresses honest reporters. OK, I believe it providing one keeps firmly in mind the “in part”.

    I can understand that reporting on Israel from INSIDE could be a tough job, and greasing the wheels by being sycophantic would be a big help for mental health of reporters. (BTW: how was it for reporters reporting from INSIDE Moscow, Burma, Columbia, China?)

    But Israel publishes a lot of stuff, even on-line. A reporter could do what the CIA is said to do a lot of — while sitting OUTSIDE, read what’s in the local press to learn what’s going on. And the “analyst” (i.e., newspaper reader) could then reprint/quote sensibly whilst still living in (relative) comfort in NYC.

    So, they don’t do this, and I think the pressure on reporters (while I don’t doubt it for a moment) comes also from management.

    Let me repeat that: NYT management could create honest reporting of I/P today, even as it could have created honest reporting of the holocaust in 1940s (which, I’ve read, it did not do at the time). But it chooses not to. And it allows the INSIDE reporters to limit their reporting to sucking up to Israeli-Jewish (and/or AIPAC) sensibilities.

    And as we know, being called an antisemite these days mostly means that you’ve offended the sensibilities of an Israeli Jew or an AIPAC-type.

  2. tokyobk
    tokyobk
    January 20, 2014, 12:16 pm

    Asians are replacing Jews in everything.

    Worry not Phil. The Jewish rise in 20th century had very specific causes and conditions have changed. Your excitement at a certain time in your life about that and anxiety now are also themselves products of a (waning) time and place.

    • Marco
      Marco
      January 20, 2014, 12:24 pm

      From perusing the bylines in newspapers and major news sites, I don’t get the sense that Asians are dominating the press at all. Nor for that matter is this impression conveyed in television news.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      January 20, 2014, 1:52 pm

      Everyone is replacing Jews in everything. We had extreme overrepresentation in American society, and a lot of it was ethnic networking.

      I may be fallible to believe that Jews are more inclined towards showbusiness than other people, but I don’t think we’re that much better that it’s very rare to see a non-Jewish CEO of a major Hollywood studio. It’s gotten a bit more diverse but was it like 20/21 or something just a decade ago? There was a gloating Jewish guy who wrote about it some years back, I don’t remember his name but I don’t think the statistic is misleading since even today you have a very similar overrepresentation.

      This kind of extreme discrimination against everyone who isn’t Jewish was always problematic but it was easier to defend when it was 85% white Gentiles, 10% black and 5% “others”(which included Jews). Today it’s much harder as there are many more minorities. Even in California non-Hispanic whites are slated to become a smaller racial group than Hispanics.

      Finally, a better question to ask is not “why now” but “why so slow”?

      Asians were 20% of the Ivy League graduates in 1990. Today they are more than 2x bigger in terms of the overall population and much more than that in terms of absolute population. Their SAT scores have skyrocketed. Yet they are stuck at 20% in Ivies.

      Unz wrote about this in the AmCon magazine, that Jewish test scores have fallen(plunged, really) since the 1990s and there is now a de facto Jewish affirmative action quota for Ivies because universities fear the “are you anti-Semitic?” backlash. The victims have been Asians and also poorer white gentile working-class kids.

      Is something similar happening at our major institutions? Asians should already be a far greater prescence at our elite societal institutions. Jews reached a much stronger position with a far smaller percentage of the population. Could it be that those evil WASPs maybe were less ethnocentric than some of people blocking the entrance to Asians today? In my view, secular American Jewry has merged with the upper middle classes of WASP society anyway. Just look at the Clintons’ daughter.

      But it’s not just the media and hollywood(typically Jewish strongholds). Silicon Valley is not much better and the CEOs there are a far more mixed bunch. (Of course I’m joking). How many non-white executives does Apple have? Twitter? Facebook?

      I’ll believe Haberman when Asians are allowed to get out the middle-management trap on a broad basis. (Bamboo ceiling).
      So far I see little to no evidence of that.
      (Curiously Indian-Americans seem to have done much better than Chinese-Americans, for example).

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 20, 2014, 6:35 pm

        Indian Americans come from the top sphere of India’s educated and wealthy class; proportionately, they are given the most share of USA’s academically-skilled immigration quota–work-related immigration entry. It’s the contrary with, e.g., legal Mexican immigrants. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/24/bobby-jindal-indian-americans-opinions-contributors_immigrants_minority.html

        They are 1% of USA’s demography. Very disproportionately represented in fields like tek, engineering, medicine. OTH, unlike US Jews, for example, they are not much represented in political incubator fields like law and finance.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 20, 2014, 6:55 pm

        It’s noteworthy that according to Pew Research Center report in 2010, Asian-Americans for the first time surpassed Hispanics as the fastest-growing legal immigrant group in the United States. As of 2010, 36 percent of immigrants arriving in the U.S. legally were Asian, according to Census data, while just 31 percent were Hispanic. This means the immigration debate is really about illegal Mexican immigrants, know matter how much the two groups are conflated by liberals and Democrats generally. This new influx of Asians to America will tell in time as they become full-fledged voting and politically financing US politics. Their country of origin is diverse, which makes it a long road to solidarity like Jews, for example have in America.

      • aiman
        aiman
        January 21, 2014, 3:36 am

        Some of the Indian Americans are big funders of Hindu fascists in India as well and unsurprisingly big fans of Zionism.

  3. Balfour
    Balfour
    January 20, 2014, 12:29 pm

    Ya think?

  4. giladg
    giladg
    January 20, 2014, 1:35 pm

    There are Jews who are so obsessed with looking good in the eye of the “goy”, that they go to the extremes with their liberalism and moral grandstanding. They approach Israel like they approach no other issue in the world and feel the more they attack Israel the more creditability they earn in the circles they think they are included in but ultimately find out they are not because they are also seen as being Jewish.
    Sound familiar Philip? It’s in their DNA Philip and there is little you can do about it.
    ( Clarification: by goy I am referring to those who would do damage to Jews)

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield
      January 20, 2014, 5:33 pm

      Giladg: Your insight into Philip’s innermost motives is so penetrating that it can only be explained by extraordinary telepathic ability. It would be interesting to hear from you what life is like as a telepath. Is there anything that non-telepaths can do to develop the same ability? Or is it just determined by our DNA?

    • eljay
      eljay
      January 20, 2014, 5:52 pm

      >> There are Jews who are so obsessed with looking good in the eye of the “goy”, that they go to the extremes with their liberalism and moral grandstanding.

      This is too funny! Phil advocates justice and morality, and giladgeee can’t stand it! He’s despised for his hateful and immoral views and he knows it, so here he is trying to convince Phil to join the dark side and keep him company.

      giladgeee’s trump card? “Phil…I am your father!”

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      January 20, 2014, 7:05 pm

      @ giladg
      Your personal definition of Goy is oh so special. The traditional Jewish interpretation of that word is anyone who is not a Jew by birth or (intentionally rare) religious conversion. Unlike you, I would not guess that Jews like Philip are obsessed with looking good in the eyes of the Goy, especially when you define goy as those who would do damage to Jews. You are claiming you looked into your crystal ball and saw that people like Phil Weiss are obsessed with getting love from Gentiles who are anti-Semites, who “would do damage to Jews.”

      In contrast, I’d deduce from all Phil Weiss has left on the pages of this blog since he started it, that he’s obsessed with universal justice; I’d say, that’s in the best of that particular strain in Jewish culture and religion. It’s not his fault that in his own inbred community within which he was raised he finds few with compatible spirits, and hence is attracted outside to other Americans who view him as an example of both the best of Judaism, and Jewish culture, and America, and American culture.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      January 20, 2014, 7:57 pm

      “by goy I am referring to those who would do damage to Jews”

      And the non-Jews who do not wish damage to Jews are called …?

      But I still see the concentration on damage to Jews. The sooner Jews stop fretting about “damage to Jews” and start thinking in terms of justice for all, the more in tune with humanity they will be.

      • piotr
        piotr
        January 20, 2014, 10:00 pm

        Non-Jew who does not wish to damage Jews: shabbos goy. At least, here, at Mondoweiss, we have seen a video illustrating the concept. However, the “shabbos goy” in the video could harbor some darker motives (personally, I suspect that he wanted to assimilate the Jewish character of the video).

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      January 20, 2014, 9:01 pm

      Gilad, how will I know when those goys I have so assiduously cultivated are about to turn on me? what are the warning signs?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        January 20, 2014, 9:18 pm

        “what are the warning signs?”

        We praise your Christmas tree.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        January 20, 2014, 9:24 pm

        You won’t know Phil, that’s his point, you have to live in fear CONSTANTLY.

      • giladg
        giladg
        January 21, 2014, 12:26 am

        Look into their eyes Philip as you ask them a question that has a scent of support for something Jewish in Israel. Surely you can’t find something to ask about? How about the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount?

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        January 21, 2014, 2:53 am

        “what are the warning signs?”
        They start asking why are we giving $3.5 b a year aid money to Israel again?

    • Sumud
      Sumud
      January 20, 2014, 9:18 pm

      In other word giladg you are accusing Phil of being a ‘self-hating jew’.

      I don’t think he is, in fact I think he does not feel the artificial (culturally programmed) distinction you do between jew and non-jew.

      You zionists robots wilfully ignore that what Israel has done and is doing is morally objectionable. That’s why people criticise Israel and that’s why BDS is catching fire, not your silly theories about everyone hating jews including other jews.

      Go watch Defamation. You are a victim of zionist propaganda.

      • giladg
        giladg
        January 21, 2014, 12:32 am

        Your track record Sumud is clearly laid out before us. We have 2000 years of recorded persecution you goy you.

      • Qualtrough
        Qualtrough
        January 21, 2014, 12:57 pm

        Is it really acceptable to call someone out here using a slur? Would it be acceptable if I were to address someone here by writing ‘you Jew you’?

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 21, 2014, 4:58 pm

        Good point. If the term “goy” is truly a racial/ethnic slur (my understanding) then it shouldn’t be used. Gentile or non-Jew are obvious substitutes.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        January 25, 2014, 8:46 am

        Your track record Sumud is clearly laid out before us. We have 2000 years of recorded persecution you goy you.

        Wow, just WOW!

        I’m surprised that made it through moderation. giladg’s attack appears to violate the following points from the comments policy:

        1. No racist or sexist comments.
        4. No personal attacks.

        and if not those, then:

        6. No trolling.

        I can’t imagine anybody would get away with making disparaging comments about jews then closing with “you jew you” – and neither they should.

        I would never use “jew” as an insult – why is giladg permitted to make equivalent comments about “goy”…?

      • just
        just
        January 25, 2014, 8:56 am

        I guess it was his/her “lucky” day to slide by unnoticed…

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        January 25, 2014, 9:03 am

        …his/her “lucky” day…

        I’m shocked that someone can be *so* lacking in self-awareness as to complain about racism against jews, while simultaneously making racist comments about non-jews.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      January 21, 2014, 9:22 am

      giladg says: There are Jews who are so obsessed with looking good in the eye of the “goy”, that they go to the extremes with their liberalism and moral grandstanding.

      Oh, even more Jewish victims. This time of extreme liberalism and morality. It’s unbearable. If only they would go to the extremes of antiliberalism and immorality – like occupying and oppressing goyim.

      • yrn
        yrn
        January 21, 2014, 11:40 am

        Talkback

        As a Goy you will never understand
        “Jews who are so obsessed with looking good in the eye of the “goy””

      • just
        just
        January 21, 2014, 12:19 pm

        What about goys (nice slur, btw)” that are so obsessed with looking good in the eye of the” ‘Jew’?

        Lots of us, “goys” and otherwise, have the ability to see beyond your narrow and racist ‘religious’ views.

      • American
        American
        January 21, 2014, 12:24 pm

        yrn says:
        January 21, 2014 at 11:40 am
        Talkback

        As a Goy you will never understand
        >>>>>

        rightbackatyou -ism—-As a Jew you will never understand.
        We goys live in constant fear of being a British colony again. We goys live in constant fear of Indians taking back their land. We goys live in constant fear another goy civil war. Blacks live constant fear of being made slaves again.
        NOT.
        But spare us the not understanding bs please.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 23, 2014, 3:59 pm

        As a Goy you will never understand
        “Jews who are so obsessed with looking good in the eye of the “goy””

        First of all, you don’t know my faith or heritage. Secondly, where would you and your Apartheid Junta be without Gentiles who are so obsessed with looking good in the eye of the “yid”?

      • just
        just
        January 25, 2014, 9:33 am

        Sumud– it’s sort of par for the course for the zioloonies. They are exposing themselves for what they are.

        Racists who proclaim that they are supporting “democracy” while, in truth, they support apartheid and the ongoing Nakba and illegal Occupation.

    • American
      American
      January 21, 2014, 12:08 pm

      gilad says…
      ”There are Jews who are so obsessed with looking good in the eye of the “goy”, that they go to the extremes with their liberalism….. the more creditability they earn in the circles they think they are included in but ultimately find out they are not because they are also seen as being Jewish.
      It’s in their DNA Philip and there is little you can do about it.”
      >>>>>

      Please show me a Jew who is obsessed with looking good to goys……looks to me if certain Jews are obsessed its with having to explain/ apologize for the Jewish State and Jews like you — in order to defend Jews.
      OTOH you go out of your way to spit in the goy face—-must be in your DNA….eh?
      You should practice Switzerland-ism—try being netural.

  5. Krauss
    Krauss
    January 20, 2014, 1:40 pm

    There is an ethnic anxiety running through the entire interview. Kind of like Lee Siegel writing an Op-Ed, laden with doom, at the WSJ that Asians are now the new Jews(and this time we don’t merely say so with flattery, this time we actually mean it, and we’re deeply fearful of it).

    Yet most of the Asians actually reaching the levels of editorship happen to be in the progressive media, like at the Nation or self-starters like the Jacobin magazine. The Independent(UK) got its first Indian editor a month ago or so.

    The NYT is still seen as a Jewish paper and for good reason. The Zionist narrative at the Times is still very strong. I read a statistic last year that 90% of all front-page stories in the MSM were written by white journalists on average. The NYT’s number was even higher, I think it was north of 95%.

    Sulzberger is ostensibly a Christian but is nonetheless a cultural Jew of his generation. I’m sure he’d count himself as Jewish in the Pew study and he would probably strongly support Zionism if given the question.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      January 20, 2014, 7:16 pm

      I AGREE, if he were actually asked that question, and chose to be honest; this is my conclusion from how the I-P Conflict and US-Israel “special relationship” is handled in the pages of the NYT–there’s a pattern. Technically speaking,
      Sulzberger Jr Sulzberger is the son of Barbara Winslow (née Grant) and the previous Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, grandson of Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, and the great-grandson of Times owner and publisher Adolph Ochs. His mother was of mostly English and Scottish origin, and his father was of Jewish origin (both Ashkenazi and Sephardic). His parents divorced when he was five. He was raised in his mother’s Episcopalian faith, but no longer observes the religion. He married artist and journalist Gail Gregg. The ceremony was performed by Rev. Katherine Belton, a Presbyterian assistant pastor, in the Greggs’ garden in Topeka, Kansas. In May 2008, they announced plans to end their marriage.

  6. American
    American
    January 20, 2014, 2:09 pm

    ”Former ‘NYT’ reporter says Times should assign non-Jews to cover Israel/Palestine”

    I agree.
    Lib zio MJ tweeted a flash of rare truth the other day, saying…..” Jews cannot be objective about Israel, they are too emotionally involved’.
    That is true, and even true about most anti Zionist Jews who will have conflicting feelings of guilt, embarassment , anger and yet feel some bit of need to protect their people in this fubar that will affect their view.

    Conflict of interest…..said it a thousand times. It is a rare bird who can divorce all of his ethnic/religo leanings/feelings , particulary among Jews, and be totally impartial when he has personal issues/desires at stake. Once in a while you find a person of that strength of character like the US German-Jewish Amb. John Gunther Dean,but they are the exception these days, not the rule.

    I do not believe either that Jews should be involved with US-Israel policy for that very reason, much less dictate it. The “feelings” and foreign attachments of a ethnic group should have nothing to do with US ‘national’ policy and national “interest’…..whether it is a minority or even majority group.
    If we had the exact same problem with England we have with Israel I would not expect the US to base its policy on the ‘sentiments’ of US European Anglo majority.
    We dont base our policy toward Asia and China on US Asian community attachments to Asia ..at least not yet….but who knows that may next.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      January 20, 2014, 7:25 pm

      @ American
      Re the changing contours of US intervention overseas, James Petras wrote on this subject recently and concluded: “In the end the most serious obstacle to effectively adapting US foreign policy to the current realities is the influential Israel-linked-Zionist Power Configuration embedded in the Congress, the Administration and the mass media. Zionists are deeply committed to pushing the US into more wars for Israel. Nevertheless the shift to negotiations with Iran, the refusal to bomb Syria and the reluctance to get involved in the Ukraine are all indications that Washington is less inclined to launch more large-scale military intervention and more receptive to the public opinion constraints on the exercise of imperial power.” http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1965

      • American
        American
        January 21, 2014, 9:24 am

        @ Citizen

        Hopeful signs…..I pray the ‘realist’ community in FP (and the public) is finally being at least considered and listened to…..even if it hasnt gotten all the way to I-Firstdom yet.

    • irishmoses
      irishmoses
      January 21, 2014, 12:55 pm

      American said:

      I do not believe either that Jews should be involved with US-Israel policy for that very reason, much less dictate it. The “feelings” and foreign attachments of a ethnic group should have nothing to do with US ‘national’ policy and national “interest’…..whether it is a minority or even majority group.

      I think conflict of interest is a good way of looking at this problem rather than “dual loyalty” which is a lot more loaded term (although the two are related). But, I think you are flat wrong in suggesting that all Jews shouldn’t be involved in US-Israel foreign policy, or that all Irish-Americans or all Chinese-Americans, etc. should be excluded from employment to foreign policy positions related to their ancestor’s country of origin. That’s way too broad a brush.

      The question is whether an individual should be excluded from a position because that person has such conflicting interests that he/she cannot protect US security and/or foreign policy interests in that position. Just being a Jew should not be an automatic disqualifier. Having strong ties to Israel could be a disqualifier due to that potential conflict of interest.

      How to tell the difference? You have to look at the individual’s resume, record, statements, associations much as you do in most national-security sensitive positions either in government or in the private sector. Applying for high level or highly sensitive positions that require top-secret security clearances is very intrusive and can even include lie detector tests for some positions. At some point someone has to decide whether the applicant has such strong ties to another country that a conflict or potential of interest exists that disqualifies that person from a particular position in which that conflict could degrade, harm, or even endanger US security and/or US foreign policy interests.

      A simple example: Someone like me with Irish-American heritage (attenuated at best) shouldn’t be excluded from a US foreign policy position related to Ireland or Great Britain unless there is clear evidence of ties to Ireland that indicate a potential conflict of interest, such as contributing to Irish political organizations, or to the IRA. The same goes for US Jews. But being Jewish, or having a Jewish surname, should not result in automatic exclusion which would certainly not pass legal scrutiny in this country.

      I think the likelihood of conflicts of interest diminishes as a given group assimilates and becomes more removed from ancestral ties to a given “homeland”. Where the ties are clearly strong, as in the case of US Jews, the conflict of interest scrutiny should be more intense, as it probably is already for Iranian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Russian-Americans, and other groups with close ties to their ancestral homeland.

  7. Shane94606
    Shane94606
    January 20, 2014, 3:16 pm

    There is certainly something amiss with the contemporary reporting on the Israel/ Palestinian issue from the NY Times as well as other major american news outlets. For example, when casually talking to the average American, they are clearly unaware of many major components of the conflict. There is an appearance of symmetry between the Israeli and Palestinian sides.
    Most do not know that 800,000 palestinians were pushed into a diaspora by 1949. They do not know that the remaining Palestinian territory has been occupied since 1967 and that the palestinians now have access to less than 50% of their land inside of the green line. Most people are unaware of the fact that the Israeli settlers are building on aquifers and that Palestinians are suffering typhoid and other diseases as a result of not having clean water while these American-style suburbs enjoy swimming pools and green freshly watered yards. Many people do not know about the “Jewish Only” roads which serve to (in the words of Sharon) make a “Pastrami sandwich” out of the West Bank by dividing it up into little Bantustans as they link Jewish settlements while blocking any hope for a viable Palestinian land.

    Needless to say, there is naturally going to be some concern for how things are getting reported in the US. After all, the American tax dollars flowing to Israel number roughly 8 Million per day. What would Americans think if they really understood what their tax dollars were funding? I am not saying that this is some kind of grand conspiracy, only that certain groups carry a vested interest in maintaining a certain narrative.

    From the beginning of Zionism, in the late 19th century, the goal was always Jewish nationalism. Theodore Herzl (arguably, the founder of Zionism) has been largely credited as referring to Jews as a nation without a state. The Israeli declaration of independence gives special rights to immigrate to all Jews all over the world. Any researcher worth his or her salt would see a potential for conflict in a scenario where there there is one group of reporters disproportionally represented on The Times Israeli correspondent staff, especially when the resulting reporting is clearly incomplete, lopsided, and obfuscates the true nature of the facts on the ground.

    Because of this sort of reporting from the largest news outlets, people like Alison Weir are forced to go out and report what she sees, the truth which remains untold in the sorts of articles one would find in the NY times. As a result, the information she presents is mischaractarised as it was in this article. But I would like to also add one other piece of personal opinion; calling her reference to the last five reporters being members of the family “pointed,” clearly an exaggeration made to elicit an emotional response. If anyone would like to really read what she wrote, it is available here:
    http://ifamericansknew.org/media/meet-nyt.html

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      January 20, 2014, 7:42 pm

      @ Shane94606
      I agree with all you say, not that I matter much, if at all. I’ve been watching how the main media and government officials manipulate the American mind and any good intentions therein for so many decades now on the I-P Conflict & US “special relationship” with Israel, I’m pretty much numb with little hope this will ever change, mainly because nobody has come up advocating an effective solution to the bribe system that is the de facto US campaign finance system in actual operation–AIPAC does what all lobbies do, especially those lobbies with absolutely no concern for anyone who is negatively impacted by these lobby efforts, but AIPAC as orchestra for the myriad of Israel First organizations in the USA operating under false names, is the most deadly lobby because it pursues the interests of a foreign power that operates righteously as a rogue state, and dares anybody to stop it–what gets for its effort is ever more bundles of US taxpayer dollars, given by individual Americans totally kept ignorant of the real Israel and how it has drained the USA’s economy and USA’s once good reputation in the world.

    • Antidote
      Antidote
      January 21, 2014, 6:04 am

      ” when casually talking to the average American, they are clearly unaware of many major components of the conflict.”

      But how is that different from talking to the “average American” (and not just Americans) about any other conflict, past or present?

  8. RoHa
    RoHa
    January 20, 2014, 7:51 pm

    “If I *would have* gotten one, I would have had it embossed and put it on a wall…”

    And he’s a journalist! Don’t they teach basic grammar in schools?

    • ziusudra
      ziusudra
      January 21, 2014, 5:04 am

      Greetings RoHa,
      We take too many liberties with our english, yes.
      My English friends laugh at how we play the tenses, example,
      How long are you married, i’m married, instead of:
      How long have you been married, i’ve been married…..
      ziusudra
      PS Let’s not Forget that English is multiple Tense Language
      compared to other Euro languages. plus we have 6 continuous
      in active & more in passive.
      The Italos & Gerries all use the present perfect instead of the
      simple past! The Gerries get along with simple present, present
      perfect & even use simple present with an adverb to express the
      future.
      PPS All english speakers can easily learn Euro languages because
      we are so aware of nuances due to our many tenses.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 21, 2014, 1:08 pm

        Jesus Ziusudra, you sound like my wife. She’s also a linguistics devotee. If we are not careful at the dinner table, she can suddenly launch into a 20 minute lecture on the importance of the bilabial fricative in modern society.

        Nonetheless, your points are well taken.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        January 21, 2014, 7:01 pm

        For the sake of clarity and accuracy, journalists should not take liberties with language. They are not writing poetry.

        Is English your native language, ziusudra?

      • Antidote
        Antidote
        January 21, 2014, 10:30 pm

        “The Italos & Gerries all use the present perfect instead of the
        simple past! The Gerries get along with simple present, present
        perfect & even use simple present with an adverb to express the
        future.”

        Your grasp of German grammar may get you through a conversation but you obviously never read or wrote German.

        “All english speakers can easily learn Euro languages because
        we are so aware of nuances due to our many tenses.”

        ROFL

    • Antidote
      Antidote
      January 21, 2014, 10:32 am

      “Don’t they teach basic grammar in schools?”

      looks like basic grammar to me. What’s wrong with it? Just curious: Would you prefer: “Had I gotten one…”?

  9. piotr
    piotr
    January 20, 2014, 10:10 pm

    I would not be so hard on giladk. It is an ancient puzzle: how people can arrive at convictions which are patently false and/or vile, and in particular, different than my own.

Leave a Reply