Freedom House puts politics ahead of human rights
It's embargoed until midnight tonight US time, but since I didn't get it directly from them, I'm not subject to the embargo. Freedom House has issued its annual report on freedom of the press, and has downgraded Israel because - wait for it -
Israel HaYom hands out newspapers for free!
Israel declined due to the growing impact of Yisrael Hayom, whose owner-subsidized business model endangered the stability of other media outlets, and
the unchecked expansion of paid content—some of it government funded—whose nature was not clearly identified to the public.
For the uninitiated, Israel HaYom is owned by that villain Sheldon Adelson, and is handed out for free on street corners and at traffic lights throughout the country. It lives on advertising, and has become the
number one circulating hard-copy newspaper in the country, much to the chagrin of Haaretz (which has almost no hard-copy presence and exists as a web site for foreigners) and Yediot Aharonot (previously the top-ranking tabloid). In fact, the Freedom House report reads like
Haaretz talking points.
Every newspaper in this country has 'paid government content' - legal notices and the like. There are many more here than in many other Western countries because every government tender and every public offering of securities (among other things) has to be published in two newspapers. But the people issuing the tender (local authorities) and the issuer of the securities (to stay with those two examples) have the right to choose in which newspapers they will publicize. Moreover, Freedom House gives no indication of how the 'paid content' in 2016 compares to past years, nor does it give any indication how much more (if any) 'content' goes to Yisrael HaYom than to any other newspaper.
The result is that while Israel is still the freest country in the Middle East and North Africa, Freedom House has downgraded our press from 'Free' to 'Partly Free' and our worldwide rank has declined to 65 (62 countries are rated 'Free') - behind countries like Chile and Uruguay and most of Europe (Norway is ranked #1, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands are tied for #2, the US is ranked #28 and the UK is ranked #41). Ghana was the only other country that declined from 'Free' to 'Partly Free' this year.
Israel's downgrading reeks of politics. Politics should play no role in this type of ranking. Shame on Freedom House!
Labels: Freedom House, freedom of the press, Haaretz, Sheldon Adelson, Yisrael HaYom
Why the Jews?
Matti Friedman will be speaking here in Boston on Monday night, and I hope to be there. You can look for "Mr. Matzav."
Friedman spoke last week in London and the text of his remarks is embedded below. Serious stuff.
Hope to see you all on Monday night.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, anti-Semitism, Gerald Steinberg, IDF, mainstream media, media intimidation, NGO Monitor, Operation Cast Lead, Operation Protective Edge, Sheldon Adelson, war crimes
What if Sheldon Adelson bought the New York Times?
Now
here's an interesting idea....
In a spirited public discussion between two of America’s richest men
and largest political donors, at the IAC conference in Washington DC,
multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson openly challenged his more
left-leaning counterpart and friend, billionaire and media mogul Haim
Saban, to jointly purchase the New York Times away from the Sulzberger family, because of the Times’ open hostility towards Israel.
The subject came up in a pubic discussion about media bias and
Israel. Saban marveled at how Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos had purchased the
Washington Post for a mere $250 million, which Saban called
“bupkis,” and that he was sorry that he did not try to buy it himself.
At that point Adelson pounced on Saban and challenged him on the spot to
join with him to buy the New York Times from the Sulzberger family.
Saban expressed an openness to the idea, but was concerned that the
Sulzberger family would not sell. Adelson dismissed that concern, “You
pay significantly more than it’s worth, then the non-family shareholders
have the right to bring a suit between the real value and what’s been
offered.” Adelson suggested that he and Saban team up and make them an
offer that cannot be refused; “There’s only one way to buy it, money….
but it’s not going to be one of those deals where I put up 10 times more
than you” Adelson said.
Sounds like a plan....
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Haim Saban, New York Times, Sheldon Adelson
Oh my: Adelson and Saban team up to bash Obama
Good morning from Chicago Ohare, which I am currently leaving and heading elsewhere. I've been here since Thursday....
Republican kingmaker Sheldon Adelson (left) and Democratic kingmaker Haim Saban (right) have
teamed up to bash President Hussein Obama's Middle East policies at the first conference of the Israeli American Council.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Saban described the
president’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
as “like oil and water.” That has fed a perception, he said, that Obama
has not been a friend to Israel, although Saban said he thinks that, in
reality, “there’s never been this level of cooperation with any previous
president.”
Still, Saban said that he
thinks Clinton would repair the relationship and that he has told her he
would spend “whatever it takes” to propel her into the White House.
That includes giving millions of dollars to Priorities USA, a super PAC
that helped Obama in 2012 and is revving up to aid Clinton in 2016.
“I
have told her and everybody who’s asked me, ‘Whatever it takes, we’re
going to be there,’ ” Saban said. “I think she would be a fantastic
president for the United States, an incredible world leader and one
under whom I believe — deeply — the relationship with the U.S. and
Israel will be significantly reinforced.”
Asked
if he would press his friend Adelson to give to the pro-Clinton super
PAC, Saban said, “I’ve got chutzpah, but I’m not suicidal.”
In
their public remarks, Saban and Adelson found common ground in their
disdain for Iran, and their fear for the danger they say that regime
poses for Israel. They expressed concern about U.S. negotiations over
Iran’s nuclear program.
Adelson said that Iranian fundamentalists are
instructed by their religion to “wipe out all infidels” and that “wiping
out the Jews would be a down payment on that.”
Referring to U.S. engagement with Iran, he said: “I would not just talk. I would take action.”
Saban
said that fundamentalist Iranians represent a real threat. If necessary
to defend Israel, and as a last resort, he added, “I would bomb the
living daylights out of the sons of bitches.”
Saban endorsed a
bill from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who addressed the group on
Saturday night, that would subject any Iranian nuclear deal to
congressional approval. Saban said a system of checks and balances with
the Obama administration on foreign policy is critical.
...
In their hour-long discussion, Saban and Adelson had few
disagreements, but one concerned how Israel engages with Palestinians.
Saban said Israel has no choice but to negotiate with the Palestinians,
whose numbers in the region roughly equal those of Israeli Jews.
“What
is Israel to do with these 6 million people?” Saban asked. “It is not
about granting the Palestinian state. It’s about securing the future of a
democratic Israel.”
But Adelson rejected the feasibility of a two-state solution.
“Newt
Gingrich was right: The Palestinians are an invented people,” Adelson
said, referring to a controversial statement made by the former
Republican House speaker whose failed 2012 presidential campaign Adelson
heavily funded.
Evenhaim asked the men
whether they think the news media are biased against Israel. Saban said
they are but cited two exceptions: Fox News Channel and the Wall Street
Journal. He joked to Adelson that they should have bought The [Washington] Post
together.
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Haim Saban, Iranian nuclear threat, Newt Gingrich, Palestinian people, Sheldon Adelson, two-state solution
Prime Minister Netanyahu has a veal chop with Sheldon Adelson
The New York Post reports that after his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Monday, Prime Minister Netanyahu
had lunch with Sheldon Adelson (Hat Tip:
Kikar Shabbat (link in Hebrew)).
Spies tell us that Bibi arrived at the small lunch hosted by Las Vegas casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson
for five people, for which “every single customer at the restaurant had
to go through a metal detector,” as the leader was flanked by Israeli
and American guards.
“The entire block was closed,” the spy said, adding, “There were even Secret Service men on the roof.”
We hear that Netanyahu opted for a veal chop as he held court.
The restaurant at which they ate was not a pricey midtown Manhattan Kosher restaurant. It's called Fresco by Scotto and it's on East 52nd Street. Here's a link to the
lunch menu. You will note that it includes items like Meat and Cheese Antipasto, Fresco Crab Cake Gnudi and a couple of lobster dishes. The Meat and Cheese Antipasto includes something called capicola. I had to look that one up with Mr. Google, but Capicola, or coppa, is a traditional Neapolitan Italian cold cut (salume)
made from pork shoulder or neck and dry-cured whole.
The average non-religious Israeli who might eat dairy products or fish (not those kinds of fish) in non-Kosher restaurants would likely not be caught dead in such a restaurant except with a sealed Kosher airline meal. Was Netanyahu's veal chop provided by El Al?
Non-religious Israelis in general are much less willing to abandon traditional Judaism than are their American counterparts.
I like Adelson's politics. I don't like his choice in restaurants. There are several Kosher restaurants in Manhattan (and in the midtown area) that are at least as upscale as this one. Here's
one I've been to several times and here's
another I'm still waiting to be treated to. The second one is four city blocks from where Netanyahu and Adelson ate.
Prime Ministers in Israel have fallen for less. Hmmm.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Kosher certification, Sheldon Adelson, treif
Video: Longer interview with former AP Israel correspondent who exposed disproportionate media coverage of Israel
Journalist and award-winning author Matti Friedman joins Yishai
in-studio to discuss his powerful article, '
An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth,' in which he writes about "the resurgence
of an old, twisted pattern of thought and its migration from the
margins to the mainstream of Western discourse—namely, a hostile
obsession with Jews."
Let's go to the videotape.
Fascinating interview, isn't it?
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, anti-Semitism, civilian casualties, Gaza, Hamas, human shields, IDF, mainstream media, media intimidation, Operation Cast Lead, Operation Protective Edge, Sheldon Adelson, war crimes
Former AP bureau chief in Israel responds to Matti Friedman
I am sure that many of you recall the article I posted last week in which former Jerusalem AP correspondent Matti Friedman explained how
institutional bias in the media leads to highly biased coverage of Israel. Now, Friedman's former AP bureau chief,
Steven Gutkin, has responded.
It is true the conflict we covered can be framed in
various ways: of downtrodden Palestinians facing off against powerful
Israel, or of tiny Israel against the surrounding sea of 300 million
Arabs. Often, I felt that attempting to “frame” it either way was not
instructive. It was preferable to simply bear witness to what we saw
unfolding before our eyes.
During my six-year tenure in Israel and the Palestinian
territories, our staff was made up mostly of Israeli Jews and
Palestinian Muslims, with a smaller number of foreigners who belonged to
neither or those two communities. Matti provided valuable, fair-minded
input during those years, a voice that often helped ensure the Israeli
viewpoint got a fair shake without belittling the other side. I was
grateful for that, and for the other voices in the bureau who did the
same for the Palestinians.
As bureau chief, I knew it was one of my key roles to
fight bias in our reporting. Was this achieved all the time? I doubt it.
But I know an honest attempt was made at all times. I always told our
reporters not to deliver “milk toast” and to lay bare the raw passions
of each side in all their glory, rather than trying to tone down the
arguments. While fairness was of utmost importance, I told them, not
every story had to be 50-50 (if you were reporting in 1930s Germany, I
asked, would you be compelled to give half the space to the Jewish side
and the other half to the Nazis?)
Matti states that the AP’s Jerusalem bureau – like all
other major news operations based in Israel and the Palestinian
territories – employs an inordinate amount of reporters because of this
hostile obsession with the Jews. The truth is the story of Israel is
that of a nation rising from the ashes of the worst genocide in human
history, being attacked from all sides upon its inception.
Depending on
your point of view, it’s also a story about the persecuted becoming the
persecutors. All of this, of course, is happening to the people of the
Bible, the descendants of the Hebrew slaves who were led out of Egypt by
Moses and from whose ranks emerged Jesus Christ. It’s as if a new
chapter of the Bible is being written in our times. Whether you think
the Bible is mythology or the word of God is beside the point. The point
is we are all human beings who love a good story, and this one is
particularly good.
In his article, Matti states that I personally
suppressed stories that did not fit my narrative of Israel being bad,
implying that I was a part of this worldwide media conspiracy against
the Jews. It’s a large statement, and of course could only be true if I
hated myself. The truth is I am not a self-hating Jew or any kind of Jew
other than just a regular one.
...
If an article didn’t appear that Matti thought should
have, it was not because it didn’t fit a pre-ordained narrative or
because we had it in for Israel. Deciding which stories to pursue
involves news judgment, and rare events are more newsworthy than common
ones. Reporters do not write about all the houses that DON’T catch fire,
and corruption in Sweden is more noteworthy than it is in Nigeria.
(Though it must be stated that Matti’s assertion that the AP ignores
Palestinian corruption and other aspects of Palestinian existence is
untrue).
Matti stated that a female reporter in our bureau had
access to maps showing the contours of a generous Israeli offer of a
Palestinian state, but that the bureau’s leadership refused to run the
story. The map he’s talking about was indeed shown by a Palestinian
official to one of our reporters. It affirmed a longstanding Palestinian
proposal for a land swap that had been part of the Geneva Initiative,
and was old news.
During my years with the AP and other news
organizations, I reported from some two dozen countries, including
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Cuba and Israel. I have been
threatened, shot at and shelled, and I have been present when colleagues
were injured and killed. Were there times when we decided not to report
a given fact because we thought it would endanger one of our reporters?
Yes there were, and one of these incidents occurred when Matti was on
the editing desk. But these events were extremely rare – perhaps only
two or three times during my entire six-year stint in Israel/Palestine –
and we withheld the information only after concluding that it would
necessarily be traced to the reporter in question, thus jeopardizing his
life.
Read the whole thing. I found Matti Friedman's presentation to be much more factual than Steven Gutkin's. And I left out this sentence in the excerpt above, which is quite telling about whether the AP and the media generally are biased:
Depending on your point of view, it’s also a story about the persecuted becoming the persecutors.
Hmmm.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, anti-Semitism, civilian casualties, Gaza, Hamas, human shields, IDF, mainstream media, media intimidation, Operation Cast Lead, Operation Protective Edge, Sheldon Adelson, war crimes
CNN interviews journalist who shined spotlight on disproportionate media coverage of Israel
You will recall that last week, I posted a story from Tablet magazine from a former AP journalist in Israel who talked about
how the media frames the Middle East narrative. That journalist, Matti Friedman, was interviewed on CNN over the weekend.
Let's go to the videotape.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, anti-Semitism, civilian casualties, Gaza, Hamas, human shields, IDF, mainstream media, media intimidation, Operation Cast Lead, Operation Protective Edge, Sheldon Adelson, war crimes
The most important story you will read today: How the media turns Israel into the pool into which the world spits
The article linked and discussed in this post really is the most important story you will read today - regardless of what else happens over the course of the day. Matti Friedman is a former AP correspondent in Israel, who has lived here since 1995. In this article, he discusses how the mainstream media frames the 'Israel story' so that you think it's the most important story in the world, and why the mainstream media chooses to do that. He also explains some of the things the mainstream media ignores because they interfere with its narrative of the 'Israel story,' and why it chooses to do so. Here are
a few highlights.
The lasting importance of this summer’s war, I
believe, doesn’t lie in the war itself. It lies instead in the way the
war has been described and responded to abroad, and the way this has
laid bare the resurgence of an old, twisted pattern of thought and its
migration from the margins to the mainstream of Western
discourse—namely, a hostile obsession with Jews. The key to
understanding this resurgence is not to be found among jihadi
webmasters, basement conspiracy theorists, or radical activists. It is
instead to be found first among the educated and respectable people who
populate the international news industry; decent people, many of them,
and some of them my former colleagues.
While global mania about Israeli actions has come to be taken for
granted, it is actually the result of decisions made by individual human
beings in positions of responsibility—in this case, journalists and
editors. The world is not responding to events in this country, but
rather to the description of these events by news organizations. The key
to understanding the strange nature of the response is thus to be found
in the practice of journalism, and specifically in a severe malfunction
that is occurring in that profession—my profession—here in Israel.
...
The volume of press coverage that results,
even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared
to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for
example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is,
roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem,
internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer
violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of
America’s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict
has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the
number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since
it began a century ago.
News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 women murdered in Pakistan last year (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoing erasure of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, the carnage in Congo (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or the Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012: 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners of India or Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close.
...
A reporter working in the international press
corps here understands quickly that what is important in the
Israel-Palestinian story is Israel. If you follow mainstream coverage,
you will find nearly no real analysis of Palestinian society or
ideologies, profiles of armed Palestinian groups, or investigation of
Palestinian government. Palestinians are not taken seriously as agents
of their own fate. The West has decided that Palestinians should want a
state alongside Israel, so that opinion is attributed to them as fact,
though anyone who has spent time with actual Palestinians understands
that things are (understandably, in my opinion) more complicated. Who
they are and what they want is not important: The story mandates that
they exist as passive victims of the party that matters.
Get ready for this one - here's a biggie.
There has been much discussion recently of
Hamas attempts to intimidate reporters. Any veteran of the press corps
here knows the intimidation is real, and I saw it in action myself as an
editor on the AP news desk. During the 2008-2009 Gaza fighting I
personally erased a key detail—that Hamas fighters were dressed as
civilians and being counted as civilians in the death toll—because of a
threat to our reporter in Gaza. (The policy was then, and remains, not
to inform readers that the story is censored unless the censorship is
Israeli. Earlier this month, the AP’s Jerusalem news editor reported and
submitted a story on Hamas intimidation; the story was shunted into
deep freeze by his superiors and has not been published.)
But if critics imagine that journalists are clamoring to cover Hamas
and are stymied by thugs and threats, it is generally not so. There are
many low-risk ways to report Hamas actions, if the will is there: under
bylines from Israel, under no byline, by citing Israeli sources.
Reporters are resourceful when they want to be.
The fact is that Hamas intimidation is largely beside the point
because the actions of Palestinians are beside the point: Most reporters
in Gaza believe their job is to document violence directed by Israel at
Palestinian civilians. That is the essence of the Israel story. In
addition, reporters are under deadline and often at risk, and many don’t
speak the language and have only the most tenuous grip on what is going
on. They are dependent on Palestinian colleagues and fixers who either
fear Hamas, support Hamas, or both. Reporters don’t need Hamas enforcers
to shoo them away from facts that muddy the simple story they have been
sent to tell.
It is not coincidence that the few journalists who have documented
Hamas fighters and rocket launches in civilian areas this summer were
generally not, as you might expect, from the large news organizations
with big and permanent Gaza operations. They were mostly scrappy,
peripheral, and newly arrived players—a Finn, an Indian crew, a few others. These poor souls didn’t get the memo.
Are you furious after reading that? I was. Here's another story that will infuriate you.
In early 2009, for example, two colleagues of
mine obtained information that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had
made a significant peace offer to the Palestinian Authority several
months earlier, and that the Palestinians had deemed it insufficient.
This had not been reported yet and it was—or should have been—one of the
biggest stories of the year. The reporters obtained confirmation from
both sides and one even saw a map, but the top editors at the bureau
decided that they would not publish the story.
Some staffers were furious, but it didn’t
help. Our narrative was that the Palestinians were moderate and the
Israelis recalcitrant and increasingly extreme. Reporting the Olmert
offer—like delving too deeply into the subject of Hamas—would make that
narrative look like nonsense. And so we were instructed to ignore it,
and did, for more than a year and a half.
This decision taught me a lesson that should be clear to consumers of
the Israel story: Many of the people deciding what you will read and
see from here view their role not as explanatory but as political.
Coverage is a weapon to be placed at the disposal of the side they like.
And why are these decisions made? Surprise: It's classical anti-Semitism (and Friedman is not a conservative - he is opposed to the 'settlements').
For centuries, stateless Jews played the role
of a lightning rod for ill will among the majority population. They
were a symbol of things that were wrong. Did you want to make the point
that greed was bad? Jews were greedy. Cowardice? Jews were cowardly.
Were you a Communist? Jews were capitalists. Were you a capitalist? In
that case, Jews were Communists. Moral failure was the essential trait
of the Jew. It was their role in Christian tradition—the only reason
European society knew or cared about them in the first place.
Like many Jews who grew up late in the 20th century in friendly
Western cities, I dismissed such ideas as the feverish memories of my
grandparents. One thing I have learned—and I’m not alone this summer—is
that I was foolish to have done so. Today, people in the West tend to
believe the ills of the age are racism, colonialism, and militarism. The
world’s only Jewish country has done less harm than most countries on
earth, and more good—and yet when people went looking for a country that
would symbolize the sins of our new post-colonial, post-militaristic,
post-ethnic dream-world, the country they chose was this one.
When the people responsible for explaining the world to the world,
journalists, cover the Jews’ war as more worthy of attention than any
other, when they portray the Jews of Israel as the party obviously in
the wrong, when they omit all possible justifications for the Jews’
actions and obscure the true face of their enemies, what they are saying
to their readers—whether they intend to or not—is that Jews are the
worst people on earth. The Jews are a symbol of the evils that civilized
people are taught from an early age to abhor. International press
coverage has become a morality play starring a familiar villain.
Read the whole thing.
I have two further comments. First, people occasionally ask me why I write a blog when most of the world gets their information from the mainstream media anyway. Unfortunately, I and my fellow bloggers have not yet reached the point where our impact approaches that of the New York Times, the Washington Post, AP or the Guardian. But collectively, we are having an impact. Not enough of an impact, but an impact all the same.
Second, after reading this story, I am more convinced than ever that the Sheldon Adelson's of the world are correct and that the answer is to create an alternative mainstream media (Adelson finances Yisrael HaYom, which has become the largest circulation newspaper in Israel - it is handed out for free and subsists on ad money). But while Israel may have been the place to start, the real places where an alternative mainstream media needs to play out are the western countries - especially in North America and Europe.
I hope you all read the story. I'm quite jaded and I was still astounded by how blatant the framing of Israel's story really is.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, anti-Semitism, civilian casualties, Gaza, Hamas, human shields, IDF, mainstream media, media intimidation, Operation Cast Lead, Operation Protective Edge, Sheldon Adelson, war crimes
Jewish Funders
Dry Bones
gets it right again.
And the answer to the question is that Soros owns the media.
Labels: Dry Bones, George Soros, liberal media bias, Sheldon Adelson
Tom Friedman's gall has no bounds
Tom Friedman, who has probably done as much or more to harm Israel than any mainstream media reporter, ,has the unmitigated gall to call Israel's ally, Sheldon Adelson,
Iran's best friend.
And now Iran has an ally: Sheldon Adelson — the foolhardy Las Vegas
casino magnate and crude right-wing, pro-Israel extremist. Adelson gave
away some $100 million in the last presidential campaign to fund
Republican candidates, with several priorities in mind: that they
delegitimize the Palestinians and that they avoid any reference to the
West Bank as “occupied territories” and any notion that the U.S. should
pressure Israel to trade land for peace there. Both Newt Gingrich and
Mitt Romney took the money and played by Sheldon’s rules.
In case you missed it, the R.J.C., the Republican Jewish Coalition, held
a retreat last weekend at an Adelson casino in Las Vegas. It was dubbed
“the Sheldon Primary.” Republicans lined up to compete for Adelson’s
blessing and money, or as Politico put it: “Adelson summoned [Jeb] Bush
and Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio and Scott
Walker of Wisconsin to Las Vegas. ... The new big-money political
landscape — in which a handful of donors can dramatically alter a
campaign with just a check or two — explains both the eagerness of busy
governors to make pilgrimages to Las Vegas, and the obsession with
divining Adelson’s 2016 leanings.
Adelson
personifies everything that is poisoning our democracy and Israel’s
today — swaggering oligarchs, using huge sums of money to try to bend
each system to their will.
Christie,
in his speech, referred to the West Bank as “occupied territories” — as
any knowledgeable American leader would. This, Politico said, “set off
murmurs in the crowd.”
Some Republican Jews explained to Christie after
he finished that he had made a terrible faux pas. (He called something
by its true name and in the way the U.S. government always has!) The
West Bank should be called “disputed territories” or “Judea and
Samaria,” the way hard-line Jews prefer. So, Politico reported, Christie
hastily arranged a meeting with Adelson to explain that he misspoke and
that he was a true friend of Israel. “The New Jersey governor
apologized in a private meeting in the casino mogul’s Venetian office
shortly afterward,” Politico reported. It said Adelson “accepted”
Christie’s “explanation” and “quick apology.”
Read that sentence over and contemplate it.
I
don’t know if Israel has a Palestinian partner for a secure withdrawal
from the West Bank, or ever will. But I know this: If Israel wants to
remain a Jewish, democratic state, it should be doing everything it can
to nurture such a partner or acting unilaterally to get out. Because,
I’m certain that when reports about the “Adelson primary” reached the
desk of Supreme Leader Khamenei in Tehran, a big smile crossed his face
and he said to his aides: “May Allah grant Sheldon a long life.
Everything is going according to plan.”
How many things does Tom have wrong here? The 'Palestinians' aren't going to vote Israel out of existence any time soon - even if they are given the 'right' to do so - so long as we don't flood the country with 'Palestinian refugees' as Tom would like us to do.
There aren't 2.7 million 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria - there are a bit more than half that number.
Judea and Samaria are not 'occupied.' They are at worst disputed. At best, they out and out belong to Israel because they were part of the original 'Palestine mandate' and were designated for close settlement by Jews as part of that mandate. From 1949-67 they were occupied by Jordan, an occupation that was recognized by precisely two other countries: Britain and Pakistan.
It's not up to the US government to pressure Israel to take risks to Israel's security. Israel has never asked the United States to fight its wars for it, and Israel never will.
There is no 'Palestinian partner for peace' now and it is unlikely that there ever will be one. Acknowledging that reality could be the first step in Tom Friedman's road to recovery from his delusions.
Labels: Chris Christie, demography, Jewish anti-Semitism, New York Times, occupation, Sheldon Adelson, Tom Friedman
Report: Obama's National Security Adviser refuses to meet with Israel's ambassador to the United States
The Obama administration claims to be the most pro-Israel administration ever. The facts belie that claim. Here's another one: Obama's National Security Adviser, Susan Rice,
refuses to meet with Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer. Dermer has been in Washington for six months and has yet to meet with Rice.
Dermer, a close associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has
been in Washington since October and presented his credentials to Obama
in December. Nonetheless, and in a departure from the practice of
previous national security advisers and previous Israeli envoys, Rice
has not met with him.
Dermer has been identified with Republican politics in the past. He
was a protégé of Republican pollster Frank Luntz and helped firm
Netanyahu’s ties to American Republicans. In the 2012 election, while
working for Netanyahu, he helped arrange Republican candidate Mitt
Romney’s campaign visit to Israel. According to the liberal-leaning The New Republic, Dermer "epitomized the Netanyahu government’s hostility to Barack Obama and his administration."
Israel Radio's diplomatic analyst, Chico Menashe, reported that prior
to naming him ambassador to Washington, Netanyahu's people checked with
the White House to ensure that Dermer's past affiliation would not pose
a problem. They were reportedly assured that it would not.
Dermer did meet in recent months with Rice's deputies.
This past weekend, Dermer addressed a Las Vegas meeting of the
Republican Jewish Coalition, a group funded by gambling billionaire
Sheldon Adelson.
Also taking part in the event were four Republican potential
presidential candidates, including former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.
In response to a question whether Rice was boycotting Dermer,
officials in Washington said the ambassador had not asked for a meeting
with Rice.
It amazes me that they even had to check....
Maybe Dermer hasn't asked for a meeting because the protocol is that Rice is supposed to ask. Or maybe he doesn't want to ask and be told no.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Mitt Romney, National Security, Republican Jewish Coalition, Ron Dermer, Sheldon Adelson, Susan Rice, US presidential campaign 2016
Chris Christie calls Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria 'occupied territories'
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who sees himself as a possible Republican Presidential candidate in 2016, used the term '
occupied territories' to describe Judea and Samaria in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition on Saturday.
Invoking a 2012 trip he and his family took to Israel,
Christie recalled “I took a helicopter ride from the occupied
territories across and just felt personally how extraordinary that was
to understand, the military risk that Israel faces every day.”
While the story was intended to forge common cause with Adelson and
the several hundred donors to the Republican Jewish Coalition to which
Christie was speaking, his use of the term “occupied territories” set
off murmurs in the crowd.
Let's go to the videotape.
Christie apologized for the gaffe.
Not long after his speech, Christie met with Adelson privately in the
casino mogul’s office in the Venetian hotel and casino, which hosted
the RJC meeting.
The source told POLITICO that Christie “clarified in the strongest
terms possible that his remarks today were not meant to be a statement
of policy.”
Instead, the source said, Christie made clear “that he misspoke when
he referred to the ‘occupied territories.’ And he conveyed that he is an
unwavering friend and committed supporter of Israel, and was sorry for
any confusion that came across as a result of the misstatement.”
Adelson accepted Christie’s explanation, the source said.
...
Before the meeting, Adelson ally Morton Klein, president of the
hawkish Zionist Organization of America, had confronted Christie about
his use of the term, telling POLITICO he explained to the New Jersey
governor that “at minimum you should call it disputed territories.”
Christie was non-committal, said Klein, who concluded afterwards that
the governor “either doesn’t understand the issue at all, or he’s
hostile to Israel.”
Hmmm.
Labels: Chris Christie, Judea and Samaria, Morton Klein, occupation, Republican Jewish Coalition, settlements are legal, Sheldon Adelson, US presidential campaign 2016
Knesset bill would put Israel Hayom newspaper out of business
In what is clearly an effort to put the wildly successful Israel Hayom newspaper out of business, a group of six MK's has introduced a bill in the Knesset that would
limit the free distribution of newspapers.
The bill, which was proposed by MKs Eitan Cabel (Labor), Robert
Ilatov (Yisrael Beytenu), Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home), Elazar Stern
(Hatnua), Ariel Atias (Shas) and Yoel Razvozov (Yesh Atid), seeks to
ensure "true and fair competition between newspapers."
Analysts predict the law is likely to cause a brouhaha in the
government, and that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will act to
prevent it from passing. The law's opponents argue that the bill, if
passed, could drastically change the balance of representative power in
the Israeli press.
Under the bill, every newspaper which is defined as one of the four
daily newspapers most widely circulated in Israel will be sold at a
"nominal value" - about 70% of the price of the cheapest and most
popular newspaper.
In addition, the bill would ban distributing free newspapers for more
than a six-month period - and require the price of each paper to be
printed prominently on the front page.
Media experts are expected to slam the bill for contributing to the
ongoing decline in the newspaper industry, which has made headlines over
the past several years as popular publications begin to disappear.
A report by the International Business Times in 2012 noted
that the newspaper industry has shrunk by 40% worldwide since 2002, and
that it continues to decline at a rate of 6.4% per year. Many attribute
the decline to the ubiquitousness and ease of internet news sources.
Israel Hayom is distributed free at traffic intersections, and makes its money off advertising. It is the most widely circulated newspaper in Israel, displacing Yedioth Aharonoth within a couple of years of its founding. It is owned by Sheldon Adelson, and American Jew with a huge interest in Israel, who also owns casinos in the US. Adelson is also a big supporter of... Binyamin Netanyahu.
Pass the popcorn....
Labels: Ariel Atias, Ayelet Shaked, Binyamin Netanyahu, Eitan Cabel, Elazar Stern, freedom of the press, Sheldon Adelson, Yisrael HaYom
It would be a tragedy if LATMA went off the air
For the last four years, LATMA has provided a Zionist answer to the Leftist satire of Channel 2's Eretz Nehederet. Now, it may all be over. Unless LATMA finds funding,
it's off the air at the end of the month (Hat Tip:
NY Nana).
Latma's chief screenwriter, Tal Gilad, published a Facebook status Sunday in which he denied the rumors that Channel 1
television is about to sign a contract with the show. "The bad guys are
already celebrating," he wrote. The channel has been negotiating with
Latma for two years, he said, but the negotiations are not serious.
"The ravens on the left can
already smell the zero hour," Gilad added. "After four years in which we
provided Zionist, courageous, Israeli satire – against the current,
against all of the leftist incitement that had already become something
everyone sat back and accepted, because they convinced everyone that
'this is how satire is.' Four year in which we cut them down. Four years
in which the ears of [Peace Now's] Yariv Oppenheimer turned red with anger, when they discovered that they were not immune to criticism and biting satire."
"The inciters, the boycotters and the enemies of Israel also got their
drubbings – from the Mavi Marmara clip that received millions of views,
boosted morale in Israel and changed the outlook of many people in the
world; to the Abba clip that infuriated Swedes after the Aftonbladet
libel; to our beloved Tawil Fadiha, Palestinian Minister of
Uncontrollable Rage – a character that would never have been created in
the 'regular' satirical programs that keep hammering you over the head
from the TV screens."
For those of you who have forgotten... I will turn the sound off for myself, because I am still in mourning for my father HK"M (may I atone for his sins), and remind you of the all-time hit
We Con the World (2,629,867 views on YouTube right now).
Let's go to the videotape.
Here's another one called Jews United Against Israel. George Soros plays a key role in this one.
Let's go to the videotape.
It would be a pity if they were taken off the air. Anyone know how to reach Irving Moskowitz or Sheldon Adelson? They could sure help out now.
Labels: Caroline Glick, Irving Moskowitz, LATMA, Mavi Marmara, Peace Now, Sheldon Adelson
The New York Times' know-it-all
CAMERA reports that New York Times bureau chief Jodi Rudoren has some serious misconceptions about the 'Palestinians.'
She's in denial.
As Rudoren tells it, [Sheldon] Adelson "tried to school
American reporters on the history of the Middle East" – the emphasis
being on "tried," since Rudoren and her colleagues are apparently much
too expert and knowledgeable to be schooled by a mere "conservative
casino mogul" who is "close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."
As dessert was served, Adelson "held court, offering
his characteristically unvarnished views," and in Rudoren's
characteristically unvarnished view this is when the day's most
ill-founded and impolitic statements were uttered:
As for the Palestinians, Mr. Adelson said, “They teach their children that
Jews are descended from swine and apes, pigs and monkeys.” Then he
questioned their existence as a distinct ethnic group, saying they were
“southern Syrians” or Egyptians until Yasir Arafat, who was leader of
the Palestine Liberation Organization, “came along with a pitcher of
Kool-Aid and gave it to everybody to drink and sold them the idea of
Palestinians.”
These ideas, staples of the far right, are deeply offensive to the Palestinians — perhaps partly the point.
Does Rudoren really believe that these claims are
mere staples of the far right, and thus, at least in her view, incorrect
and without foundation? If so, she does indeed need to be schooled in
both current events and Middle East history.
Read the whole thing. Watch the embedded videos too. It's incredible that the New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief is denying reality because it doesn't comport with her outlook.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, Sheldon Adelson
J Street backer Bill Benter bankrolling pro-Hagel campaign
I guess George Soros is a little short on cash. Hong Kong based gambler Bill Benter, whose secretary, Consolacion Esdicul,
donated most of J Street's budget in 2008-9, is
bankrolling the fight to make Chuck Hagel the next Secretary of Defense of the United States.
But over the last two weeks, Hagel's friends in the
Democratic political world have come to his aid, principally by rounding up
senior former officials to write supportive op-eds and funding an advertising
effort to spread the world that Hagel does in fact have bipartisan support.
The
Cable has learned that a large chunk of that pro-Hagel
money is coming from one Democratic donor, gambling legend Bill Benter, who is working with the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying
firm, to support pro-Hagel advertising. Podesta facilitated Benter's funding of a
week of ads in Politico's Playbook
must-read daily newsletter, written by Mike
Allen, a spokesman for Benter confirmed to The Cable.
"The Bipartisan Group issued its letter to set the
record straight on Chuck Hagel's character and on the positions taken by that
Group. One of the Group's long-time supporters, Bill Benter, paid for the
advertising so that the letter could reach a wider audience," the spokesman
said. "The public interest would be better served if those organizations
which spent much more on attack ads against Senator Hagel would also disclose
their donors."
The so-called Bipartisan Group is really just taking care of one of their own.
"The Bipartisan Group is an
informal grouping of leading foreign policy experts, most of them former senior
government officials, who are connected with various leading policy institutes
and academic institutions, such as the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign
Relations, the Aspen Institute, and the U.S./Middle East Project," a
representative of the group told The
Cable.
The group organized its first letter
in 2008 and its members include Zbigniew
Brzezinski, Thomas Pickering, Lee Hamilton, Brent Scowcroft, Paul Volcker,
Frank Carlucci, William Fallon, Sandra Day O'Connor, and ... Chuck Hagel.
"It was a group that got together (for
these kinds of things) and called themselves the Bipartisan Group," said Larry Korb, defense expert at the
Center for American Progress.
And of course the Left thinks this is wonderful.
Steve
Clemons, a long-time supporter of Hagel's, said there's
nothing wrong with Benter's activity and pointed out that the anti-Hagel crowd
is superbly well funded by undisclosed rich donors.
"Sheldon
Adelson and Irving Moscowitz are
regulars at this and I think it is great that progressive funders step forward
to support a fair and honest discourse on these issues," he said. "There's been
too little funding put behind candidates like Hagel and too much funding spent
on the smears. It's nice to see some balance."
Undisclosed? Adelson's donations were much more transparent than Benter's donation to J Street, which has not been acknowledged to this day. And isn't it funny that every time I see references to Adelson's business, they include words like 'mogul' or 'magnate,' while those words are never used about Benter?
Speaking of which, will we see the New York Times editorializing that it's
immoral to take money from Benter as they did about Adelson?
Who says there's no double standard in the United States?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Benter, Chuck Hagel, Consolacion Esdicul, J Street, Sheldon Adelson
Adelson's Israel HaYom: America chooses socialism
The picture above is from page 17 of Sheldon Adelson's Israel HaYom, which is distributed for free here in Israel (I haven't been out of the neighborhood all day so I didn't get one).
Headline:
America chose socialism (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
Anyone want to argue it's inaccurate?
I didn't think so.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Campaign 2012, Sheldon Adelson, socialism
Adelson: 'I didn't leave the Democratic party, they left me'
As the son of someone who grew up in those Boston neighborhoods in the 1930's and 1940's, I can definitely agree with what Sheldon Adelson writes about
why he is no longer a Democrat.
So why did I leave the party?
My critics nowadays like to claim it's because I got wealthy or
because I didn't want to pay taxes or because of some other conservative
caricature. No, the truth is the Democratic Party has changed in ways
that no longer fit with someone of my upbringing.
One obvious example is the party's new attitude toward Israel. A
sobering Gallup poll from last March asked: "Are your sympathies more
with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?"
Barely 53% of
Democrats chose Israel, the sole liberal democracy in the region. By
contrast, an overwhelming 78% of Republicans sympathized with Israel.
Nowhere was this change in Democratic sympathies more evident than in
the chilling reaction on the floor of the Democratic convention in
September when the question of Israel's capital came up for a vote.
Anyone who witnessed the delegates' angry screaming and fist-shaking
could see that far more is going on in the Democratic Party than mere
opposition to citing Jerusalem in their platform. There is now a
visceral anti-Israel movement among rank-and-file Democrats, a
disturbing development that my parents' generation would not have
ignored.
Another troubling change is that Democrats seem to have moved away
from the immigrant values of my old neighborhood—in particular,
individual charity and neighborliness. After studying tax data from the
IRS, the nonpartisan Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reported that
states that vote Republican are now far more generous to charities than
those voting Democratic. In 2008, the seven least-generous states all
voted for President Obama. My father, who kept a charity box for the
poor in our house, would have frowned on this fact about modern
Democrats.
Democrats would reply that taxation and
government services are better vehicles for helping the
underprivileged. And, yes, government certainly has its role. But when
you look at states where Democrats have enjoyed years of one-party
dominance—California, Illinois, New York—you find that their liberal
policies simply don't deliver on their promises of social justice.
Read it all.
Labels: National Democratic Party, Sheldon Adelson
Creepy Pascrell threatens Boteach, Adelsons with 'suffering'
The NJ-9 Congressional race just got even uglier than
it was already. Incumbent Democrat Bill Pascrell has threatened Republican challenger Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and his main benefactor Sheldon Adelson, with '
suffering' for having the nerve to challenge him (Hat Tip:
Jack W).
Bill Pascrell, Democratic incumbent Congressman from New Jersey’s 9th district, has threatened his Republican opponent, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, with “suffering.” Referring to Boteach, Pascrell blustered: “He’ll have to suffer with the people who he’s getting the money from."
Pascrell didn’t stop there. He attacked Boteach’s major-donors,
mega-philanthropists Sheldon and Miriam Adelson: “We know their record.
We know they’re being investigated. If he wants to take money from them,
fine.”
Pascrell is a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which has power over all taxation, tariffs, and
other revenue-raising actions. Pascrell is obviously threatening to use
his influence to destroy Boteach and the Adelsons, simply to advance
his own career.
Boteach responded:
I find it bone-chilling that a sitting
Congressman would threaten his opponent for simply engaging in the
democratic process. It is one thing for Bill Pascrell to try and
intimidate me and my supporters. It is completely another to threaten
unspecified retaliation in the form of ‘suffering’ for simply exercising
First Amendment rights. We expect harassment of political opponents in
Iran and the former Soviet Union. We certainly don’t expect an elected
official in New Jersey to act in this manner. The Adelsons are the
foremost Jewish philanthropists in America. It is particularly troubling
that a sitting Congressman would threaten people who have done so much
good in the world. I find it rich that Pascrell, who spent $2.5 million
to defeat Steve Rothman just three months ago, is suddenly whining about
money and politics.
But this is now common practice for the Democrats, using the
Department of Justice to punish their opponents, especially the
Adelsons. The Obama Administration has been after Adelson since 2010,
knowing that he was likely to back the Republican nominee.
Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.
Labels: Bill Pascrell, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Sheldon Adelson
