Tom Friedman’s double standard: Israel has a right to shoot demonstrators because that’s how Arab nations behave; but Iran doesn’t. Human rights groups have said Israel deliberately targeted civilians with live fire on the Gaza border though they posed no threat; but Friedman says it’s an “easy” call to defend those shootings.
Category Archives: Media Analysis
At the same time as he reversed decades of US policy on settlements, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reportedly reached out to Sheldon Adelson for donor support to run for Senate in Kansas. And it’s not a scandal. Though the Israel lobby corrupts our foreign policy.
The New York Times gives Paul Wolfowitz a platform to criticize Trump on the withdrawal from Syria, and the fight against ISIS, without saying a word about the roots of ISIS in the destruction that his project of invading Iraq wrought throughout the region. Wolfowitz should be on trial for major war crimes, Helena Cobban writes, not featured in the New York Times.
The Israeli army has come up with story after story to explain away the “mistaken” massacre of a family of nine in Gaza Nov. 14th. Now the army chief of staff sends a pep-talk letter to all soldiers about the two-day assault on Gaza that leaves out the family’s names but assures that the matter is being investigated.
Israel would have reached a deal with the Palestinians and allowed a Palestinian state years ago if it did not have blind American support to go on taking more and more Palestinian land. The Israel lobby, which has prevented criticism in both parties in the U.S., is the root cause of the conflict, and the lobby’s role as Israel’s supporter in western capitals is a fundamental principle of Zionism.
For all their talk of “complexity” and “ambiguity,” the contributors to “Teaching the Arab-Israeli Conflict” are in fact as politically and morally engaged as those putative classroom brainwashers and ideologues who serve as their whipping-boys. Instead of being more scrupulous and balanced in their pedagogy, these authors simply have a particular historical and ethical “take” on the subject. The Zionist-Palestinian conflict is not so very morally or politically ambiguous.
Tom Friedman of the New York Times says he supported Iraq war in part to keep Israel from being surrounded by chaos in Arab world. He assures a pro-Israel audience, “Israel had me at hello. Whatever you think folks– don’t worry. In times of crisis, I know where I will be. When the Jewish state is under threat–” Though he worries if the next foreign affairs columnist will get a “buzz” for Israel.
The New York Times Jerusalem correspondent David Halbfinger hit a new low yesterday with his article contending that “a new group of Arab thinkers” want to abandon the boycott of Israel.
The same paper that dissects every bigoted innuendo by Donald Trump somehow loses that ability when it comes to the political leaders of Israel.
Western media has rationalized the recent Israeli attacks on Gaza by focusing on on Israel’s fears. Denijal Jegic writes these “fears” are a reflection of the structure that underlies the relationship between the settler-colonial state and the indigenous population.
Dan Shapiro and Michael Koplow say the U.S. made a “moral commitment” to Israel as a democracy against countless threats 71 years ago and the U.S. has a strategic interest in preserving Israel as a democracy, or the morality of the relationship will be undermined. The possibility that we should distance ourselves from Israel because it’s persecuting Palestinians is simply off the table for these liberal Zionists. Though progressive Democrats increasingly feel that way.
While the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that the killing of an entire family in Gaza was a “mistake,” the New York Times allows the Israeli military to explain that “civilian casualties are unavoidable in Gaza’s teeming neighborhoods.” And, hammering home the propaganda point, the paper says Israel “takes numerous precautions to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties.”
In the December election in the UK, the disparity between rich and poor; our response to the Climate Emergency; and the future of the United Kingdom all need to be central themes of the campaign. The one issue that does not need to be part of the debate is antisemitism. The charge is leveled against Corbyn because he will change policy re Israel.
Netanyahu’s political calculations in attacking Gaza are no secret in Israel. So why do they hardly get mentioned in the American mainstream media?
The Netanyahu government is working hard to shut down human rights groups who are the only chance of holding it accountable for the appalling abuses committed by Israeli soldiers.
The abandonment of about a dozen outposts across northeastern Syria hardly constitutes a substantial drawdown of U.S. forces in the region. With the president either reshuffling troops in Syria or merely relocating them elsewhere in the Middle East and a new contingent of American forces deploying to Saudi Arabia, there will actually be a net gain in U.S. troops in the region at this moment of supposed reduction.
The New York Times did the bare minimum in reporting on an Israeli soldier who was sentenced to one month in prison for murdering a young Gazan demonstrator last year.
The spirit of J Street conference was young Jews telling of shattering experiences in Palestine. The issue is not complicated, says Brett Rosenberg of an Obama foreign policy thinktank. Israel’s occupation is immoral and Americans must take action.
Benny Gantz’s best hope of becoming Israeli PM is to threaten to make a center-left minority government with outside help of Palestinians. The threat would cause Netanyahu’s defense line to crumble at last, and Likud members would join Gantz. So Palestinians are just a pawn in the game, never allowed near real power.
A terrorist bombing campaign in Lebanon in the early 1980s that killed 100s of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians has now been confirmed as an Israeli operation led by prominent figures and suppressed by a military censor. But western media have ignored the bombshell revelation, thereby underlining the prejudicial discourse of terrorism.
We are actually having a debate about anti-war policy in the Democratic Party. Pete Buttigieg is soaring in fundraising in part due to strongly interventionist stances in last debate, while Sanders and Warren are getting slammed by establishment voices for alleged isolationism. And Tulsi Gabbard is smeared as a Russian asset for condemning “regime change” in Syria.
The New York Times is actively whitewashing the U.S. role in Syria with a childish piece of propaganda telling its readers we armed only honest trustworthy Boy Scouts, not these current horrible racist murdering dregs.
Forward opinion editor Batya Ungar-Sargon’s claims of anti-Semitism at Bard college have been widely refuted. Yet she has doubled down on them – saying the response only confirms the truth of her allegation. This is dishonest, and also strategic, aimed at limiting criticism of Israel inside leftwing circles.
Donald Trump’s decision to abandon former Kurdish allies in Syria has been a shock to Israel and its US lobby. Israel thought it had a very special place in Trump’s worldview, but the withdrawal appears to gives Iran far more leeway. We are on our own against Iran, several Israeli officials and Israel supporters conclude fearfully. War is more likely than ever, one expert concludes.
Numerous voices on the left responded, “apartheid” after Sen. Amy Klobuchar described Israel as a “beacon of democracy” in the Democratic debate. The first reference to Israel in four debates shows that the issue is truly divisive inside the Democratic Party.