Trending Topics:

Rachel Maddow’s lineup of crazy U.N. speeches spotlights Arafat– and leaves out Netanyahu!

and on 41 Comments

On MSNBC last night, Rachel Maddow did a rundown of “unhinged” speeches at the UN General Assembly.

She included the late Muammar Qaddafi of Libya– evidently this rant about swine flu and the Kennedy assassination…

A “freaking” 4-and-1/2-hour speech by Fidel Castro, in 1960.

Nikita Khrushchev slamming the podium with his shoe. And the late Hugo Chavez of Venezuela calling George Bush Satan and saying he could smell sulfur in the air.

And Yasser Arafat from 1974, saying he carried an olive branch and a gun. Maddow:

“Arafat did mean that quite literally. He insisted on wearing a gun in a holster for his first U.N. speech– which is nuts. But you know, every year there’s someone.”

How fair is that? All the men were heads of state, except for Arafat. The United Nations resolved there should be an Arab state in Palestine in 1947; but it never followed through on that plan. So Arafat represented a dispossessed people, and surely was acting in the tradition of such peoples in vowing to fight occupation.

Moreover, Maddow doesn’t actually take issue with anything Arafat said in his speech. Instead it’s a superficial attack on a symbolic gesture (and the gun probably wasn’t loaded).

OK, but let’s be devil’s advocate and stipulate that it wasn’t diplomatic of Arafat to wear a gun inside the General Assembly.

However, if you are going to make a list of crazy UN speeches, you really have to twist yourself into a pretzel not to mention Benjamin Netanyahu’s theatrics.

You’d think Maddow might have put Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb on the list, from 2012.

Or the time he said that militant Islam is an “insatiable crocodile“:

They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.”

Or maybe his 44 seconds of silence, glaring at the assembly in 2015, accusing them of approving a second holocaust.

Netanyahu glaring at the General Assembly for 44 seconds in 2015.

If you want to talk about crazy antics at the UN, that’s fine, but if you’re including Arafat from 43 years ago and not any of the myriad examples of Netanyahu from the much more recent past then you’re not being honest.

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .

Scott Roth

Scott Roth is publisher of Follow him on twitter at scottroth76 .

Other posts by .

Posted In:

41 Responses

  1. Citizen on September 20, 2017, 6:21 pm


  2. JosephA on September 20, 2017, 6:49 pm

    Rachel Maddow really is strangely selective with her devotion to “PEP” (progressive, except for Palestine). Shame on her, and thanks for pointing this out.

    • Donald on September 20, 2017, 11:15 pm

      I used to watch her semi regularly, maybe 20 percent of the time and never understood why people like her so much. She is not that progressive in foreign policy– if she were she would have to take a long hard look at many Democrats and not just on Palestine. This is true of most other MSNBC hosts afaik, except occasionally Chris Hayes, but I stopped watching them all last year.

      Plus I think she treats her audience like we are morons. Or it comes across that way to me.

  3. JWalters on September 20, 2017, 8:55 pm

    The puzzling thing is how someone as THOROUGHLY progressive on all other issues could be so blindly oblivious and regressive on Palestine and Israel. And not just Maddow, but many others. Elizabeth Warren at a recent town hall via C-SPAN seemed genuinely progressive and concerned about all humanity. Same for Bernie Sanders, Judy Woodruff, and others. Yeah, there is quite a lot of money involved, but it seems to me that’s not a sufficient explanation.

    A possible answer is provided in “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins. He described how an agent of the oligarchy would approach a newly elected president, say in South America, and make them the classic Mafia offer they can’t refuse. Millions of dollars for yourself and your family, all well taken care of for the rest of your lives, or a bullet in your head. Some of these people might be willing to risk a bullet to their head. But they would not be willing to bring a terrible fate on their child or grandchild. A small shift in the target of the death threat could be all it takes to quiet even brave and principled people. And those deaths would be peanuts compared to the profits reaped from a war.

    This possibility explains the anomaly, fits the current facts, such as zionists owning MSNBC, and fits the historical operating methods of Israel.
    “Terrorism: How the Israeli state was won”

    • echinococcus on September 21, 2017, 1:09 am

      J Walters,

      The puzzling thing is how someone as THOROUGHLY progressive on all other issues could be so blindly oblivious and regressive on Palestine and Israel. And not just Maddow, … Elizabeth Warren … Bernie Sanders, Judy Woodruff, and others

      Yeah, how come people so goddam “progressive” they never stopped cheering and egging on the Bushes and Obamas and Goerings of this world to do more and bloodier wars, so thoroughly “progressive” they never found any war that they would oppose, so progressively trying their best right now to also start WWIII or something just like it, are just exactly as “progressive” when it comes to Zionist invasion and war? What a thick mystery…

  4. Bandolero on September 20, 2017, 10:10 pm

    I wonder why Rachel didn’t put up Mahmud Ahmadinejad explaining in 2010 why he thought 9/11 was an inside job to serve Israeli interests.

    • Rob Roy on September 21, 2017, 3:21 am

      Bandolero, is that a little tongue-in-cheek?

      • Bandolero on September 21, 2017, 2:16 pm


        Just a little bit.

  5. MalcolmLeftly on September 21, 2017, 1:23 am

    Rachel is very good. However, she either understands the red line or it’s been inculcated without a conscious realization. If you grew up (perhaps) thinking any criticism weakens Israel it has to affect you does it not?

  6. US Citizen on September 21, 2017, 2:02 am

    Maddow is a shill and a hack for AIPAC. Nary a word about illegal settler squat terrorism, the Occupation, Apartheid or crimes against humanity in respect to the Palestinians. Look no further than her to abrogate anything regarding justice for the Palestinians. She actually thinks she is a ‘journalist’. Sad commentary and shame on her although I doubt she would even care, it’s all about pleasing her jewish bosses.

  7. Marnie on September 21, 2017, 2:24 am

    I no longer have any inclination to watch Rachel Maddow. She clearly portrays israel as good guys and palestinians as terrorists, overtly or covertly. She has no credibility or honor.

    Her lineup was a half-assed job.

    I think about Hugo Chavez’ remarks about Bush and chuckle when I recall the laughs he got from it.

    The world is laughing much harder though, I imagine, laughter and tears, over the inane, incoherent and unintelligent comments made by tRUMP and the bombastic, arrogant remarks of netanyahoo. What innovation israel has provided the world deals in death and destruction. Way to go, blight upon the nations!

  8. RoHa on September 21, 2017, 2:59 am

    Remind me who this Rachel Maddow person is, please.

    • JeffB on September 21, 2017, 12:48 pm


      She’s an American news commentator on television. She’s hosts the #1 rated news analysis show among liberals. She’s well known for lengthy but interesting side tracks, lots of quality independent research, digging into depth (for television) on topics… Politically she’s about where Nancy Pelosi is, and arguably sets the media bar for the left edge of mainstream discourse.

      She does excellent coverage of military issues and foreign policy issues. However her primary focus is on issues of execution. For example Congress having abdicated its role with regard to oversight relative to the executive branch, and the constant fights for influence between the State Department and the Defense Department. She’s rather mainstream on the actual policy objectives of the United States her focus is mostly on the debates between government factions. Conversely on economic issues she tends to have a left vs. right focus.

      This is frustrating for your typical MW leftist who expects her to hold opinions on foreign policy objectives she simply doesn’t hold, i.e. in line with their objectives for radical change in the direction of USA policy.

      So for example she supported the first Iraq war but has blistering criticism for the timing and the environment of the congressional debate. She supports the war on terror but is aggressive in her criticism of how the war authorizations are being handled.

      • Marnie on September 21, 2017, 11:41 pm

        You take the bait every time. What a douche.

      • Marnie on September 22, 2017, 12:41 am

        It’s striking how you take it upon yourself to answer questions with the faux authority of the average, garden variety pompous blowhard.

      • Mooser on September 22, 2017, 11:35 am

        Pay no attention to the boy behind that curtain!

    • Donald on September 21, 2017, 9:26 pm

      She’s a centrist liberal, more of an entertainer than a serious journalist. Her show is shallow and mainly interesting if you are a political junkie who enjoys political gossip about how moronic the Republicans are, an admittedly endless subject. . She tosses in some often silly background in her stories. She has an hour every night five days a week and could, in theory, dive deeply into various issues, but for whatever reason she generally doesn’t do that. If one wants centrist liberal mainstream coverage of politics you would be much better off reading the NYT or the New Yorker with all their flaws than wasting five hours a week on Maddow.

    • RoHa on September 22, 2017, 8:39 pm

      Thank you. I will probably have to ask again if her name pops up later. As is the norm with media people, she is not a person worth remembering.

  9. Dutch on September 21, 2017, 6:27 am

    Remember Colin Powell? He brought anthrax into the UN – at least, that’s what he said it was. February 2013.

    • festus on September 21, 2017, 12:22 pm

      I believe Powell said this “could be” anthrax. And then fear mongered. Pathetic company man.

  10. genesto on September 21, 2017, 12:31 pm

    Rachel is just an entertainer with a successful show, so she assiduously avoids anything that would anger the Zionist crowd and jeopardize her ratings. She’s far from being the serious-minded, in-depth journalist many portray her to be. Instead, she does segments like this that don’t add anything to the discourse. I stopped watching her years ago.

    When I watch a news program I want NEWS, not entertainment!

    • larick on September 21, 2017, 2:47 pm

      “Entertainer”….Right on. To the tune of the Fiddler song; “Gatekeeper Gatekeeper find me a latch, I’ll keep your secrets locked up in a hatch. No one will recognize the evil you do, I’ll keep ’em watching with minds shut like glue.”
      Do we think that Comcast is going to pay someone $8 million a year ($30k per performance) to tell us the truth? “Actor” is all…..doing her job, which is to muddy the waters so the 1% can continue to make billions by killing.

  11. Sulphurdunn on September 21, 2017, 12:46 pm

    Ms. Maddow makes $7 million a year at MSNBC.

    • larick on September 21, 2017, 3:24 pm

      You’re probably right. I was using $30k x 5 shows, but it’s probably only 4 per wk. Whatever, her weekly is probably above 40%/35% of what the population in this country makes A YEAR! To keep us confused about the class divide here and globally. Keep us deep into the weeds w/o seeing U.S. murderous imperialsim, including funding/backing the crimes of Israel. A good investment in the status quo while seeming to be for “change”. Useful.

  12. ckg on September 21, 2017, 1:02 pm

    She sticks her neck out for nobody. She doesn’t want to be the next Valerie Plame.

    • jsinton on September 21, 2017, 4:46 pm

      Valerie Plame came out blaming ‘the Joooos’ for all the wars today. The faux-left media is all agog with indignation.

    • larick on September 21, 2017, 8:14 pm

      Valery Plame was not a journalist. Her duty was not the same as the duty of a journalist, which has to deliver the truth to the public, particularly in a “democracy”, or as in the U.S., a country struggling to become one. Maddow is a corporate shill for the so-called “left of center” faux populist Demo party. Pity.

  13. Marnie on September 21, 2017, 2:11 pm

    Speaking of BS, MSNBCs zionist darling, Andrea Mitchell, mentioned israel/netanyahoo twice in the space of a minute wrt earthquake in Mexico City and the assistance they were receiving from around the world – israel/netanyahoo mentioned first among the other nations assisting (no mention of u.s.). It was disgusting, as is her usual. Except that time she didn’t do it. She must have gotten a zionist tune-up for that one.

    Andrea Mitchell suggests State Dep’t staged ‘fake news’ in Jerusalem with Kushner, Netanyahu and no press
    US Politics
    Allison Deger on August 25, 2017

  14. Kay24 on September 21, 2017, 2:55 pm

    I must say I watch Maddow, because her coverage of the Russian investigation can be interesting. That said, of course she does not mention Israel or refer to it’s crimes. but then which journalist does, in any of the news channels? No one has the courage to mention the words “occupation” or “illegal settlements”, and knowing that the parasitic nation is given billions of dollars by American tax payers, the most aid to any nation, I would think it would be a topic of interest for the American people to know how it it spent, the crimes against humanity, the Palestinian homes demolished, and miles long illegal settlements, which the US has condemned, and that this is the nations that kills civilians, at the slightest excuse. It is time they
    informed the public that Israel is not the real victim in this conflict.
    I guess to do so would be the end of their careers. It is a sickening situation.

    • jsinton on September 21, 2017, 4:44 pm

      The Russiagate thing does not pass the smell test, never did. And after a year there’s still no proof, no smoking gun. To me it was an easy way to smear Trump, the Russians, and deflect blame for Mrs. Clinton being a lousy candidate… all in one brief sentence. The ability for such vast components of the American body-politic to fall for it is breathtaking.

      • Kay24 on September 22, 2017, 9:00 am

        Either you must be part of the Robert Mueller team, and know that they are wasting everyone’s time, or must do some research to learn how this works. It is strange that Trump’s son, son in law, and around 10 in his campaign/administration have had secretive meetings and calls with Russian spies and agents, and have even admitted to it, after it was found out, and yet you think it is an easy way to “smear” these deceivers. This has nothing to do with the fact that Clinton may, or may not, have been a lousy candidate, this has everything to do with this country being corrupted by Russian interference, possible collusion with enemy no.1, and unethical practices by Trump and his cabal. Every American must be outraged at this, and what it means for future elections.

      • Mooser on September 22, 2017, 11:16 am

        You’ve got it! When a candidate is a man of such impregnable reputation, coupled with amazing accomplishments, a hoax like Russia-gate is the only way to diminish his leadership.

      • Mooser on September 22, 2017, 2:37 pm

        ‘If Trump had anything to hide, he would have shown us his tax returns!’

    • Tuyzentfloot on September 22, 2017, 4:10 pm

      I must say I watch Maddow, because her coverage of the Russian investigation can be interesting.

      Interest exists in the eye of the beholder. I use different sources and I consider Russiagate disinformation of the level of the Iraq war. And with any good campaign any reasonable person who follows the mainstream should be convinced.

  15. jsinton on September 21, 2017, 4:41 pm

    Maddow and the whole faux-progressive media is driving the entire snarky lefty/DNC crowd down the toilet. They’ve allied themselves with the neocon warhawks, Deep State, Zionist cabal, which is a grotesque development in my book. I’m hoping they wake up from their delusion before 2020 so we can say goodbye to incompetent Trump, but alas I fear it won’t happen.

    • echinococcus on September 21, 2017, 11:46 pm

      I’m hoping they wake up from their delusion before 2020 so we can say goodbye to incompetent Trump

      Your hope of replacing an incompetent, ineffective buffoon by the same competent, bloodthirsty Dim warmongers sounds like the result of a death wish of yours.

      Not a good reason to hope for some big collective event, though, as most of us hope our kids can go on living.

      Besides, the Dims never “woke up” since the end of WWII –they won’t start now.

  16. Kathleen on September 21, 2017, 4:41 pm

    Not surprised by Maddow’s bias. She is also one of the MSNBC host who has some of the Iraq war hawks on. Andrea Mitchell, Lawrence O’Donnell, Joy Reid the biggest supporters of Iraq war hawks on their programs. Max Boot, Stephen, Alberto Gonzales, Hadley, Bill Kristoll regulars Maddow also protected Clinton from her war record during the campaign and her recent kiss ass interview with Clinton.

    Greenwald nails it again.

  17. MalcolmLeftly on September 21, 2017, 11:46 pm

    I must say I watch Maddow, because ”
    Because she is very good at what she does.
    This thread is too critical of her. Nobody, is going to say everything you’d like to hear. If it’s correct she’s making “seven” mil it’s not like there are other markets where she could go and make that kind of cash. Yes she has to walk the line carefully.
    Perhaps if you have ever had the feet cut out from under you, maybe you’d understand?

    • Kay24 on September 22, 2017, 9:07 am

      Her investigative journalism is better than most others. Of course, like ALL others, she will not dare to criticize, or focus on, the criminal behavior of the zionists, and must keep the “poor Israel is a victim” narrative going, if they want to keep earning big bucks. They don’t call it “zionist media” for nothing.

    • Mooser on September 22, 2017, 11:17 am

      “Perhaps if you have ever had the feet cut out from under you, maybe you’d understand?”

      Like getting fired from a plum job on a New York magazine? That’ll teach him!

  18. hungrydave on September 25, 2017, 1:07 am

    Maddow is awful and not only on Palestine. She’s bonkers for a war with Russia

Leave a Reply