Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (22422)	3/28/2002 5:22:59 PM
From: Paul Kern	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

An interesting article from MSNBC.com, which I am posting without editorial comment. Note that the author writes for The Nation. Intractable foes, warring narratives While much of the world sees Mideast conflict through Palestinian eyes, in America, Israel’s view prevails It's sort of like saying that most of the American press was aligned against Hitler and Stalin but there were a few who were sympathetic to both. Paul

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (22422)	3/28/2002 11:29:58 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Your author posted a pretty exhaustive list of the pro-Israel commentators, but I don't think he tried very hard to look for the pro-Palestinian commentators. He could have found several from every left of center paper in the country without having to look too hard. But then, it would have weakened his point, wouldn't it?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (22422)	3/29/2002 2:05:16 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

I found it interesting that Alterman put on his list of semi-offenders those who would criticize both sides, but would eventually "support Israeli security over Palestinian rights". Let's consider that phrase, and reverse it; Alterman clearly implies that he approves of those who "support Palestinian rights over Israeli security". What exactly does this mean in the context of the Middle East, particularly in the current situation? Hmm? Andrew Sullivan answers Alterman's article at andrewsullivan.com: SAID AND ALTERMAN - TOGETHER AT LAST: There's something clarifying about Eric Alterman and Edward Said simultaneously deciding and writing that a key problem for the Middle East and for American democracy is that most commentators are blindly, reflexively, unalterably defenders of anything Israel does. Here's Alterman's exquisite formulation: "For reasons of religion, politics, history and genuine conviction the punditocracy debate of the Middle East in America is dominated by people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel. The value of this legion to the Jewish state is, for better or worse, literally incalculable, particularly when push — as it inevitably does in the Middle East — comes to shove." Notice the escape clause - "and genuine conviction." Without that phrase, Alterman, who believes a lone blogger is a dangerous force for McCarthyite censorship, would be accusing a whole swath of writers of having dual loyalty, or simply refusing to think or exercise their own conscience or judgment with regard to the Middle East. Most of the people cited are also Jews. The term Alterman uses is: "COLUMNISTS AND COMMENTATORS WHO CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO SUPPORT ISRAEL REFLEXIVELY AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION." Then he provides a list - a black-list, you might call it - of all the offending journalists. Here's Said, who chimes in on the same theme: "The worst misrepresentation of all is that in the 54 years since 1948, never has a narrative of Palestinian heroism and suffering been allowed to emerge. We are all depicted as violent fanatic extremists who are little more than the terrorists that George Bush and his cabal have imposed on the consciousness of a stunned and systematically misinformed population, aided and uncritically abetted by an entire army of commentators and media stars -- the Blitzers, Zahns, Lehrers, Rathers, Brokaws, Russerts, and their ilk. The Israeli lobby is scarcely needed with such faithful disciples trailing happily in its ranks." So here Said is also naming names of journalists lobotomized by blind support for a tiny country. Now why should such people be so blinkered? If it isn't out of conviction, what could it be? This is fodder for the usual anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and it's helpful to see Alterman reinvigorate the trope. I wouldn't call him dangerous or a threat to the republic. But it strikes me that someone publishing blacklists of journalists controlled by the Jews might be a little circumspect about labeling others McCarthyites. Said: counterpunch.org