From Haaretz: Not bad, one of them is not Jewish [guess thats more useful in Syria and Lebanon] Jonathan Cook: What are the chances that we get both sides of the picture from this bunch ? Seriously, a guy with a son in the IDF is the major NYT journalist in Israel? And if he's American, why isn't he in Afghanistan or Iraq? Why in the IDF?
Jimmy Carter: source For which he was forced to apologise. Binyamin Netanyahu [of Philadelphia]: The prime minister of Israel was raised in Philadelphia. The Israeli ambassador to the US is an American citizen who exchanged his passport for an Israeli governmental post Now "Israelis" abroad, might be able to vote for the Knesset.
Appearances and demagoguery, SAM. One of the biggest challenges for Israel is influential Jews in the American government who don't live in Israel, yet have the power to influence events in Israel from outside. Case in point is Rahm Emannuel who volunteered as a mechanic in the IDF during the first Gulf War. Many in Israel believe that it is him and people like him who advise Obama on Israel, is why Obama went ahead with some of the toughest pressure on Israel in a long long time. Obama thinks "well if my advisers are Jewish then Israelis will understand that my intentions are good and I'm pro-Israel". Think again Obama - you have the lowest approval ratings among Israelis of any US president. Or at least it's way down there. In Israel they worship anything that is American... so to see an American president with such low approval ratings is quite strange to me. So this presence of Jewish politicians on the American side, it isn't a problem for bias. Only for the appearance of bias. In fact, most Jews, including me, don't feel comfortable at all having Jewish reps in the American government so high up exactly for that reason. These guys will have to bend over backwards and overcompensate to prove their objectivity by putting excessive pressure on Israel, as we've seen with Rahm Emannuel. Now, as for Ambassador Oren and PM Bibi... Oren immigrated to Israel a few decades ago, served in the IDF... he's an Israeli was was born in the States. That's about it. And Bibi, he lived in the States for a few years, and later he went to university there. But he was born in Israel, and was a captain in IDF's most elite special forces unit - the Sayeret Matkal. He's Israeli inside and out. I don't see the point you're trying to make by pointing out that Bibi and Oren might be "Israelis" as opposed to Israelis. You're just talking shit, as usual. Don't get yourself too worked up.
So Oren is an "Israeli" born in the US and Netanyahu is an "Israeli" born in Palestine and raised in the US. How many congressmen are "Israelis" by the same definitions? Whats the requirement, apart from being a Jew, to become an "Israeli"? What do you think of NYTs bureau chief in Jerusalem having a son in the IDF?
So "not Jewish" is one of your benchmarks for honesty. Nice. Very classy, and not bigoted at all. It's even completely logical: after all, the issue of Palestine and Israel surely involves no Jewish people?
Indeed and if they were all Arabs, I am sure we'd see the same opinion from you. Kinda strange don't you think that NYT doesn't "allow" its Arab or Palestinian reporters to report on Israelis?
I'd be happy to see some balance in reporting, although if one wants to hear honest reporting NYT is not really the place to look towards. But having almost all Jewish reporters and editors on IP for decades? That could not possibly be random.
No such thing as "Palestine", SAM. You may now proceed to getting really mad and stomp your proverbial foot, and write lots of nasty shite, but the fact remains.
The real bias S.A.M., start with Judge Goldstone. There are those who, when they first heard his name and what he was assigned to do, rolled their eyes and muttered, "How honest is that report going to be?" And when it was done, there were some who huffed and fumed because a man with a name like that ought to be able to see the truth, and how dare he say those things about Israel! He is a traitor against his own people! So what do we say of that? After all, many of the Goldstone Report's critics had to make shit up to criticize. They had to pretend parts of the report didn't exist so they could complain that the report didn't cover those things. Now, there's another element to this. And come 'round the circle with me on this one: • Acknowledging Cook, and— • Proposing that The New York Times is like any other American journalistic establishment in certain ways (e.g., capitalist)— • I would propose that much of the "structural bias" the NYT suffers accommodates the need for advertising revenue and, thus— • There is no guarantee that the NYT coverage of Israel would be any better if the primary reporter didn't have a son in the IDF. The NYT is not like other news outlets in certain ways, as well. It is a paper of record, and endures certain additional scrutiny for that. And the longstanding papers of record have all been exceptionally disappointing in recent years, even in issues other than and predating Bush. American coverage of foreign conflict has long been rather one-sided because its coverage of foreign policy has long been rather one-sided. If you go back and watch the old Newsreels from World War II°, you get an sense of how an entire generation of young boys, at least, were introduced to the idea of the news. I'm sure Fraggle can recall a few great newsreel moments before the Saturday matinee. We are only about a single generation separated from the minstrel bringing the news. Really, it's entertaining: spend some time with those. Some of them are amazing. Like the Shah's fortieth. I mean, really. The news hasn't changed much. Potential conflicts of interest are a compelling question, but American press is riddled with them. Shot through. I mean, it's one thing to believe that reporters are for sale, but when the Washington Post goes and makes it official? That does tend to sting. Bronner is going to have to seriously and spectacularly blow it. You know, get burned by a confidential source, something like that. And that is about on par with what it takes for any journalist who narrates properly in the context of the revenue bias. It's an interesting question, in a field of interesting questions. And a compelling issue, amid a heap of compelling issues. I would be at least as concerned if instead of Bronner it was some premillennial dispensationalist with a son in Afghanistan. Which is to say that it's just another thing to be aware of. And that generally falls under the rubric of remembering that one is reading The New York Times. They bury their subversive stuff elsewhere, like book reviews. It's one way of doing what they think they have to in order to survive, and the NYT is just barely surviving right now. And, yes, doing what they think they have to includes the apparently-racist outcome Abunimah suggests insofar as they don't want even a whiff of that particular conflict of interest. The NYT is not just satisfying the proverbial (ha!) "Jews" in this sense, but also the American conservative Christian right wing, which has tremendous influence through mobilization. Boycott power extends well beyond their apparent influence measured in raw numbers of registered voters. The NYT editors need not presume that no Arab reporter can cover Israeli Jewish issues fairly; they need only acknowledge the fears of a potential backlash. It has the same effect. It looks really, really bad. But if you watch closely, not that many Americans are actually going to care. In addition to those who will side with the traditional pro-Israeli narrative are those who are going to tell you to take a number and get in line. And what remains? The activist left is tremendously fragmented. It's why they can't seem to organize boycotts and political actions as quickly as, say, Wildmon and the puritan right. I mean, the number of liberals who drink Starbuck's? And, really, who the hell is going to boycott Eddie Bauer? Yeah, I know. Amazing, isn't it? But that includes me. And, you know, I forget why I'm supposed to be mad at Levi's, but I still buy their jeans and I don't care enough to look it up. Probably polluting Mexican agricultural water, or something like that. I know why I'm supposed to be mad at Gillette, but I use Schick and don't care enough to look up why I'm supposed to be mad at them. And, yeah, I'm pretty sure the shave gel I bought in between the ridiculously-overpriced shit that I wouldn't use except that a friend got caught up in one of those make money from home distribution pyramids and my mother, for some reason, likes the products enough to always accidentally end up with an extra shave gel to give me is from Gillette. Oh. Wait. S. C. Johnson. Even better. I don't know, and I don't want to know. To what degree should I stand off Caterpillar? Should I never go into a building built with Cat equipment? That's damn near impossible. And then start adding in who gets counted as a liberal in this sort of consideration, and at one end of the spectrum we might draw the line at anti-abortion Democrats, or labor Democrats in the midwest who don't think the President of the United States should ever be a woman. Around what can how many facets of liberalism rally? And for how long? That's what remains. And most of them read The New York Times, anyway. They're about as likely to give it up as they are their morning stop at Starbuck's. Or the SUVs they drove to meet there. Each of them. On their own. I mean, sure, I drive a Toyota. But it has a V6. And, yes, I occasionally drink Starbuck's. I doubt any of the coffee I drink, when I drink it, is conscionable. One cannot presume that Bronner has blown it without reading the column. But conflicts of interest, once known, stick out if the coverage gets too sloppy. And, yes, the marketplace decides what equals too sloppy. It's not quite a crap shoot but, rather, fairly easy, with this subject, to harvest good returns with safe bets. ____________________ Notes: ° World War II — Let me reiterate just how amazing this particular clip is. The "Campaign in Burma". April 24, 1944. Astounding. Breathtaking hilarity. Insanity. America. Works Cited: Noah, Timothy. "Fathers and Sons". The New York Times. January 13, 2008. NYTimes.com. February 17, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/review/Noah-t.html Abunimah, Ali. "Jews can report on Palestinians, but the other way 'round?" Mondoweiss. February 8, 2010. Mondoweiss.net, February 17, 2010. http://mondoweiss.net/2010/02/abunimah-jews-can-report-on-palestinians-but-the-other-way-round.html Internet Archive. Universal Newsreel. Archive.org. Viewed February 17, 2010. http://www.archive.org/details/universal_newsreels Herlihy, Ed. "Gen. 'Ike' Man of the Hour". June 18, 1945. http://www.archive.org/details/1945-06-18_Gen_Ike_Man_of_the_Hour —————. "Campaign in Burma". April 24, 1944. http://www.archive.org/details/1944-04-24_Campaign_in_Burma —————. "Kruschev's Mystery Trip to Albania". June 1, 1959. http://www.archive.org/details/1959-06-01_Khrushchevs_Mystery_Trip —————. "Iran". November 2, 1959. http://www.archive.org/details/1959-11-02_Iran
I hear that S.A.M. is actually a secret Jewish agent provocateur the Mossad uses to identify online enemies. Don't agree with her about anything or she'll report you to Netanyahu and you'll be assassinated. What other possible explanation can there be for the all-powerful Jewish World Conspiracy not to have disappeared her already?
Be careful quadraphonics, or the admins and mods here will ban you for 3 days for besmirching SAM's good name and reputation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'll start by saying that I obviously didn't read your entire post since it is so long and so boringly written. But you did cite Goldstone, so I'll respond to that. Just because he was heading the investigation doesn't mean he did the whole thing. The 4 main people working under him are documented to have anti-Israeli bias. One of them, an Irish colonel, was particularly deranged, even in public, before even setting foot in Gaza. People think Goldsone is responsible for the 500+ page stack of lies. That just isn't the case. He happened to head the team who conducted the "investigation", so he gets all the credit / blame, and he's the face of it. But no. He took on the job with honourable intentions, however he couldn't contain all the anti Israel garbage brought to him by his underlings, and the report was eventually released with a stamp of approval from him. He extended that pile of shit his stature as a respectable international judge, and as a Zionist Jew. Us Jews are mad at him for agreeing to take on such a folly in the first place, knowing full well that it would be written by typical UN apparatchiks rendering him stuck between approving an extremely biased report, or withdrawing and tarnishing the reputation of the UN as "biased", or himself as "non biased", and then inevitably arriving at that situation and not withdrawing. Sure, the report had a few paragraphs that mentioned Hamas' war crimes, but even if 95% of the report was devoted to Hamas, as it should have been, the UN bodies and the Arabs would only talk about the other 5%. The UN body that commissioned the report is ridiculously and outrightly biased. (All the top human rights abusers on this earth are on this human rights comission. Can't get much more Orwellian than that). The mandate of the report was biased. The members of the commission itself, such as that Irish Colonel, were biased even in the phase of graphic and video evidence that would go against their biase. The only member who was not biased was Goldstone himself. But he allowed himself to be used as a tool and did nothing substantial about it. Oh, and by the way, the audience for which the report was commissioned was biased too, which is the body that commissioned the report, plus all the other human rights abusers and "palestine" champions who couldn't wait to get their hands on yet another tool to take away attention from their human rights violations. There are literally dozens of factual refutations to this idiotic Goldstone report, full of facts, not name calling or hyperbole. Many include photographic and video evidence. Keep in mind that no other warring nation is burdened with such a strict requirement to justify its actions or provide documentation about their actions to the whole world - especially real war criminals like Hamas or Hizballah. There has also been, predictably, a strong emotional response to the report from Jews, but what do you expect? Not every Jew is as smart and non-confrontational as you think, keeping his or her reactions to dry and polite sterility. I say FUCK Goldstone. He should have quit as soon as he has seen the first draft of his staff's efforts, and not put his signature on that document. [Tiassa, I so know you're going to quote just that one last sentence, ignoring the rest of the post...] Better yet, he should never have agreed to head this inquiry in the first place.
The most damning indictment of Goldstone cannot conceal the simple basic fact that his detailed and almost clinical detached listing of Israel's war crimes is evident to anyone who actually reads the report. And that no media will touch him on MMS. A website dedicated to the facts in the Goldstone report http://www.goldstonefacts.org/ Desmond Travers, co-author on the Goldstone Report: As for NYT catering to the advertising revenue and as a publication of record, I think its publications during American wars abroad including the atomic bombing of Japan, have shown exactly what the record is. As Slater says quite succintly: http://www.jeromeslater.com/ I'll address your self flagellation and the decline of liberalism in the United States sometime later, although one cannot but notice that the most left leaning opinion in the US is probably centrist in some other societies.
Ethan Bronner in the NYT: That little bit of "investigative reporting" from Jerusalem really cracked me up.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What cracks me up is Hamas' and even the PA's textbooks teaching "palestinian" children ancient blood libels about Jews (remember - 75% of the UN's operating budget is funding by the US government...) And about Hamas calling a UN suggestion that Hamas introduce some mention of the Holocaust in Gaza school textbooks, a "crime against humanity." How's that for cynical abuse of western terminology to confuse and obfuscate, and of course diminish real crimes against humanity like suicide bombings and using "palestinian" civilians as sand bags as they shoot thousands of rockets into Israeli kindergartens and hospitals. Quite the investigating reporting indeed.
You should read Gilad Atzmon's take on the Protocol of the Elders of the Zion, I haven't read it, but I admit, he's made me curious.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Dreyfus, The Protocols and Goldstone by Gilad Atzmon Some excerpts: So instead of perpetuating the false hasbara of the Zionist organisations: take a look at what Israelis are saying about Israel. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And the low class goons that represent "that shitty little country" in the Levant
Why hasbara? There's ample evidence that exactly what CMIP says is happening is indeed going on, either in Palestine or elsewhere in the Middle East: Sort of a cynical approach, one might say. Much of the same is seen in the textbooks of Islamic schools in the United States. The issue goes back throughout the past century, seemingly. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=33&x_article=94 But don't take it from me. Take it from Saudi Arabia's chief imam. Or any of the information on http://www.pmw.org.il/ http://www.palwatch.org/. I expect your excuse will be that it's all translated meanly, and that no segment of religious Muslims has any sort of intolerant conservative outlook. There's more, of course, but that would do for a start.
