David Brooks, "Baseball or Soccer?": New York Times Coverage of Israel, Professional Wrestling or Prostitution?

World Cup fever abounds, and David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Baseball or Soccer?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/opinion/david-brooks-baseball-or-soccer.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), would have us know that our lives are more akin to soccer than baseball. Brooks writes:

"Most of us spend our days thinking we are playing baseball, but we are really playing soccer. We think we individually choose what career path to take, whom to socialize with, what views to hold. But, in fact, those decisions are shaped by the networks of people around us more than we dare recognize."

Is my life a subconscious soccer game? Frankly, my dear Mr. Brooks, I don't give a damn.

In fact, I am far more intrigued by whether New York Times coverage of Israel and its current war with Hamas is more akin to professional wrestling or prostitution.

First, there was the July 7 editorial of the Times entitled  "Four Horrific Killings" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/opinion/can-israeli-and-palestinian-leaders-end-the-revenge-attacks.html?ref=opinion), in which the Times related to the recent murders of four teenagers - three Israelis and one Palestinian. As Mr. Yishai Schwartz wrote in a New Republic article entitled "The New York Times's Editorial on Israel Was a Sloppy Hack Job" (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118605/new-york-times-israel-editorial-was-hack-job):

"I take the deteriorating situation in the Middle East very seriously, and just yesterday I wrote about some disturbing trends in Israeli society. But it’s precisely because of the high quality of the Times’ Middle East news coverage that the glaring factual flaws in yesterday’s editorial, 'Four Horrific Killings,' are so astounding."

Indeed, the Times falsely asserted that Netanyahu had belatedly condemned the murder of the Arab teenager and speciously claimed that a Netanyahu quote of a Bialik poem was intended to incite vengeance.

This editorial was followed by a preposterous Times guest op-ed entitled "A Palestinian Mother’s Fear in East Jerusalem" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/opinion/a-palestinian-mothers-fear-in-east-jerusalem.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), in which Ms. Rula Salameh lambasted Israel for not building bomb shelters for Palestinians in East Jerusalem and blamed Israeli authorities for her divorce (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/rula-salameh-palestinian-mothers-fear.html).

Today, in a lead Times article entitled "Gaza Deaths Spike in 3rd Day of Air Assaults While Rockets Hit Israel" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/world/middleeast/israel-gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news), Isabel Kershner writes:

"As the air campaign entered its third day, the Palestinian death toll rose to at least 78, a majority of them civilians, according to officials in Gaza. No Israelis have been reported killed."

My goodness, according to "officials," 78 people in Gaza have died in a conflagration in which Hamas has fired more than 500 missiles at Israeli civilians during the past week! Of course, we are not told how many of the 78 were Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives and commanders (Hamas does not want you to know this information).

Also, no real mention of the use of civilians in Gaza as human shields. See the following July 8, 2014 MEMRI video in which Hamas Spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri adulates this human-shield policy and commends "the character of our noble, jihad-fighting people":



Yup, when women and children are used as human shields to protect Hamas fighters, inevitably there are going to be civilian casualties.

But more to the point, the death of 78 persons in Gaza, many of them combatants, rates a New York Times headline, notwithstanding the fact that more than 200,000 people are dead in neighboring Syria.

Or "closer to home," civilian deaths in Afghanistan caused by the United States, its allies and Afghan government forces total some 6,500 (see: http://www.thenation.com/afghanistan-database), but it's so much more fun to point a finger at Israel.

So, is New York Times coverage of Israel and its war against Hamas more akin to professional wrestling, i.e. harmless theatrics involving leotard-clad buffoons engaged in acrobatics, or prostitution, i.e. tendentious reporting intended to promote the agenda of the Obama administration?

I will let you decide.

Vladimir Putin, "A Plea for Caution From Russia": The Kremlin Celebrates

There is a raucous celebration underway at the Kremlin today, following publication of Putin's guest op-ed entitled "A Plea for Caution From Russia" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0) by The New York Times.

Over the past several weeks, after losing support from the UK for his "limited" strike against Syria's Assad regime, President Obama's hesitance and meandering have earned him scorn from even traditional Middle East allies. As reported by a Washington Post article entitled "U.S. ties in Persian Gulf at risk as Obama allows space for Russian-Syrian plan" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-gulf-relations-at-risk-as-obama-allows-space-for-russian-syrian-plan/2013/09/11/71a065f8-1b0d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html) by Loveday Morris:

"The United States risks damaging relations with Persian Gulf states as it warily embraces a Russian initiative for Syria to relinquish its chemical arsenal, analysts say, with Sunni monarchies fearful that the U.S. pullback from military strikes will bolster President Bashar al-Assad and the influence in the region of his ally Iran.

Disappointment at the decision could further cool relations with gulf countries already frustrated by a lack of U.S. leadership on Syria during the 21 / 2-year-long conflict there. Increasingly sharp statements from the normally imperturbable gulf nations reflect the growing sense of unease."

Israel, which is facing a showdown with Iran over the Islamic Republic's nuclear weapons development program, has lost all faith in Obama's promises not to allow Khamenei to acquire an atomic bomb. In this regard, Obama told The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg in 2012, "As President of the United States, I don't bluff" (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/), but the Israelis don't believe him anymore.

The left leaning New Republic is currently running an article by Julia Ioffe entitled "The Syria Solution: Obama Got Played by Putin and Assad" (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114655/obama-syria-policy-octopus-fighting-itself).

The New York Times? After allowing Putin, today, to rub Obama's nose in the White House's diplomatic blundering, The Times, attempts to soften the blow by spreading the blame in an editorial entitled "Diplomacy as Deterrent" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/diplomacy-as-deterrent.html):

"But the diplomacy could provide more of an immediate deterrent against further chemical attacks than the threat of an attack, and far more of a deterrent in the longer run. Russia will continue to make seemingly unreasonable demands until a deal is finally signed and is unlikely to admit that the Syrian regime carried out the gas attack. But Congress and Mr. Obama should be careful about setting hard deadlines or drawing any more red lines."

Excuse me, but what did Congress have to do with Obama's "red line"? It was all the president's doing!

Putin's guest New York Times op-ed? Putin (actually, a ghostwriter) correctly states:

"Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world."

But then Putin tosses in a flagrant lie, softened by purported concern for Israel:

"No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored."

Observing recent US overseas failures, Putin observes that US military intervention has proven futile:

"But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes."

Putin's conclusion, in which he ridicules Obama's reference to American exceptionalism:

"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is 'what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.' It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

"Growing trust" with Obama? What he really means is growing contempt for the US president's feckless conduct.

Or stated otherwise, Putin makes a compelling case for the proposition that community organizers do not come away with the skill set necessary to be Commanders in Chief.

Game, set, match, Putin.

Bill Keller, "Profiling Obama": Obama's "Daunting Agenda"?

Yes, the United States is in trouble.

As reported by TPM (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-race-relations-suffer-in-wake-of-zimmerman):

"The acquittal of George Zimmerman still fresh in the public's memory, a poll released Wednesday found that America's views of race relations have taken a step back in the wake of the polarizing verdict.

According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, a slight majority of 52 percent of Americans said race relations in the country are either 'very good' or 'fairly good,' a huge dip from the stretch between 2009 and 2011. In NBC/WSJ polls conducted during that period, more than 70 percent described race relations in such positive terms."

Remarkably, the Zimmerman trial provoked racial antagonism, notwithstanding the fact that the prosecution was unable to present any evidence whatsoever of racist tendencies on the part of George Zimmerman. But then the fires of racism were stoked by Obama's misguided interference with the case, when he declared that "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

Obama, who had a privileged upbringing in Hawaii, could have been Martin? Was Obama ever known for violence, even when provoked, or problems at his top private school in Honolulu? Was Obama suspended three times from high school, or was jewelry, allegedly given to him by an unnamed friend, ever found in his backpack (see: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html)? Sorry, but there can be no comparing Obama's childhood with that of Martin.

Of course, there is always a need to address and confront racism, but the Zimmerman trial was neither the time nor place. This was a time for healing and for bringing the temperature down below the boiling point. Obama bungled the matter.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Profiling Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/keller-profiling-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Bill Keller refers us to Obama's responses to the Zimmerman trial and claims that the president is the object of "racial profiling" by those hoping that he will be more proactive regarding matters of race and also those fearful of his involvement. Keller writes:

"People may no longer give Obama suspicious glares in department stores or clutch their purses when he enters an elevator, but they have typecast him according to their own fears and expectations of a black man in the White House. They are still profiling Barack Obama."

Keller goes on to say that Obama will continue to tread carefully regarding matters of race, because he has an "agenda" to pursue:

"My guess is that the president will navigate those straits as he always has when race looms, carefully and without fanfare. If he is true to form, he will quietly pass over [New York police commissioner Ray] Kelly, because it’s now clear the appointment would become a major distraction from his agenda, because racial profiling is a lifelong personal sore spot for Obama, and because he has other, less polarizing options.

. . . .

And that’s O.K. President Obama has an economy to heal, a foreign policy to run, a daunting agenda blockaded by an intransigent opposition."

An "agenda"? A "daunting agenda"? And just what might that agenda be?

An economy to heal? Where is the new game plan?

The president's signature legislation? Earlier this month, Obama postponed implementation of the Affordable Care Act's demand that large employers provide their employees with health insurance or pay a tax. Sorry, Bill, but this had nothing to do with "intransigent" Republicans. Rather, it had everything to do with recognition by the administration that Obamacare is indeed a train wreck that could jeopardize the chances of Democrats in the 2014 congressional elections.

Foreign policy? Excuse me, but just what might that foreign policy be? Is it to be found in the declaration of Samantha Power, America's new UN ambassador(http://www.newrepublic.com/article/srebenica-liberalism-balkan-united%20nations#):

"A country has to look back before it can move forward. Instituting a doctrine of the mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors."

Yes, let's continue with the apology tour, before taking the lead on pressing issues around the globe.

An agenda? If you ask me, Barack Obama's true "agenda" is Barack Obama, which will find increasing expression on the links, which are neither black nor white, but green.

Thomas Friedman, "Lessons from Tahrir Sq.": Tom Didn't Do His Homework

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Lessons From Tahrir Sq." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/opinion/25friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), Thomas Friedman dazzles us with a display of naiveté, and we can only pray that Friedman is not advising Obama, as was recently reported by Martin Peretz of The New Republic (see: http://www.tnr.com/article/tel-aviv-journal/88563/obama-middle-east-zakaria-friedman-israel).

Writing from Cairo, Friedman lectures us that both the Palestinians and Israelis "have been untouched by the Arab Spring" and that they "could actually learn something from Tahrir Square". He suggests to the Palestinians:

"Announce that every Friday from today forward will be 'Peace Day,' and have thousands of West Bank Palestinians march nonviolently to Jerusalem, carrying two things — an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other. The sign should say: 'Two states for two peoples. We, the Palestinian people, offer the Jewish people a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed adjustments — including Jerusalem, where the Arabs will control their neighborhoods and the Jews theirs.'

. . . .

Crazy, I know. Bibi is reading this and laughing: 'The Palestinians will never do that. They could never get Hamas to adopt nonviolence. It’s not who the Palestinians are.'

. . . .

How about you, Palestinians, especially Hamas? Do you have any surprise in you? Is Bibi right about you, or not?”

Was it Friedman who foolishly advised Obama to include the reference to the 1967 lines -- lines resulting from the 1949 armistice, not borders, as Friedman would have us believe -- in his Mideast policy speech last week, which ruptured relations with Netanyahu on the eve of his visit to Washington?

Be that as it may, Friedman has now taken it upon himself to advise Hamas, whose charter, inter alia, calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis. Yes, Tom, that includes you.

But what about the "Arab Spring" and events at Tahrir Square?

• We know that Egyptian Muslims are still murdering Christian Copts.

• We know that women are still subject to vile abuse, as evidenced by the "Million Women March" from Tahrir Square, which was poorly attended, degenerated into a violent shoving match, and ultimately was dispersed by the police. Note also that not a single woman was appointed to the Egyptian committee assigned to draft constitutional amendments following the overthrow of the Mubarak regime.

• We know that in the southern Egyptian city of Qena, protesters have been sitting on train tracks, taking over government buildings and blocking main roads in order to impose Islamic law.

• We know that leading Egyptian presidential candidate Amr Mousa is telling us that the Camp David Accords signed between Egypt and Israel have expired, thereby paving the way for another war.

Better yet, note what another Egyptian presidential candidate, Mohamed ElBaradei, has to say about Egypt following events at Tahrir Square (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=221660):

“'Right now, socially, we are disintegrating,' ElBaradei said on CNN’s 'Fareed Zakaria GPS,” . . . . 'Economically we are not in the best state. Politically it’s -- it’s like a black hole. We do not know where we are heading.'

. . . .

'People do not feel secure,” ElBaradei said. 'They are buying guns' to protect themselves, he said.

. . . .

ElBaradei said the Egyptian economy is suffering from no investment, inflation, a budget deficit and lack of tourism."

Palestinians and Israelis should "learn something from Tahrir Square"? What lessons derive from the "Arab Spring", which is fast becoming the "Arab Winter"? Perhaps it's time for Tom to go back to school and do his homework.

Thomas Friedman's "End of Mideast Wholesale": Road Apples

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "End of Mideast Wholesale" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1&hp), Thomas Friedman today showcases his ignorance and arrogance regarding Israel and developments in Egypt. Friedman writes:

"For the last 30 years, Israel enjoyed peace with Egypt wholesale — by having peace with just one man, Hosni Mubarak. That sale is over. Today, post-Mubarak, to sustain the peace treaty with Egypt in any kind of stable manner, Israel is going to have to pay retail. It is going to have to make peace with 85 million Egyptians. The days in which one phone call by Israel to Mubarak could shut down any crisis in relations are over.

Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and the front-runner in polls to succeed Mubarak as president when Egypt holds elections in November, just made that clear in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. Regarding Israel, Moussa said: 'Mubarak had a certain policy. It was his own policy, and I don’t think we have to follow this. We want to be a friend of Israel, but it has to have two parties. It is not on Egypt to be a friend. Israel has to be a friend, too.'”

Amr Moussa wants to be "a friend of Israel"? Apparently, it never occurred to Friedman that Amr Moussa is capable of saying one thing to The Wall Street Journal, intended to soothe Western sensibilities, while saying something quite different to the Egyptian media. Friedman still doesn't understand that in the Muslim Middle East, prevarication, i.e. taqiyya (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/taqiyya-when-lying-is-ordained-from.html), is sanctioned from above when seeking to vanquish non-believers.

Observe the "other" Amr Moussa speaking with the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masri Al-Yawm on April 21, 2011 (http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/36787.htm):

"The Camp David Accords signed between Egypt and Israel have expired and no longer govern the situation, Arab League secretary-general and potential Egyptian presidential candidate Amr Moussa has said.

Moussa, who participated in the negotiations with Israel in 1978, made the statements during a discussion with Egyptian youth.

He added, 'What governs the relationship between the two countries is the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 and the Egyptian-Israeli treaty.'"

Or in other words, Moussa is paving the way for another war with Israel.

As noted by Eric Trager in an article entitled "The Throwback" (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/87607/moussa-biography-egypt-arab-league-mubarak) in The New Republic:

"Despite having represented the combined interests of the Arab world’s 22 autocracies for the last decade, he is now the frontrunner to succeed Mubarak in what could be Egypt’s first-ever truly democratic presidential election. And Moussa owes his startling political ascendance primarily to one thing: his shameless exploitation of anti-Israel demagoguery for political gain.

. . . .

As Egypt’s top diplomat, Moussa immediately projected an adversarial approach toward the United States and Israel. One of the first issues he handled was the Madrid Peace Conference, which the George H.W. Bush administration hoped would help shape a new regional order following the Persian Gulf War. When Israel insisted that the administration push for the repeal of a U.N. General Assembly Resolution that equated Zionism with racism as a precondition for joining the peace conference, Moussa demanded that the issue be tabled until after the conference, and Egypt was ultimately absent from the vote.

. . . .

He declared that U.S. support for Israel 'poisoned' the peace process, and, after the U.S. presented evidence of a Libyan chemical weapons program to the Mubarak regime, Moussa publicly denied that such evidence existed. He backed Yasser Arafat’s refusal to compromise on Jerusalem during and after the failed Camp David summit in the summer of 2000; called on the Arab world to support the Palestinian Intifada in October of that same year; and declared the Palestinians’ 'right of return' to Israel a 'sacred right,' over strong U.S. objections."

Friedman believes it is incumbent upon Israel to befriend this man? Thanks for the gratuitous advice, Tom, but you know what you can do with it.