New York Times editors do it numerous ways. At times in their “Room for Debate” series. Featuring mostly one-sided views.
Crowding out truth and full disclosure. Overwhelming it with Big Lies. On October 17, they headlined “Should Nations Recognize a Palestinian State?
Six views were presented. More on them below. An earlier article said the following:
Debating is an ancient tradition. Socrates and Plato debated political, social, and other issues. The Socratic method involves opposing sides asking and answering questions.
Ideas are freely aired. Beliefs are challenged. Truths are sought. Critical thinking is stimulated.
Opinions are formed. Conclusions are reached through free and open dialogue and discussion.
Debates should involve opposing sides given full opportunity to air views. At the same time, challenge those of others.
New York Times editors changed the rules. Views contradicting state policy are prohibited, marginalized, constrained, or given short shrift.
Doing so compromises truth and full disclosure. Public thinking and perceptions are manipulated and controlled.
News and views are filtered. Acceptable residue is reported. Dissent is marginalized.
Government and corporate interests alone matter. Groupthink is sought. Consent and conformity are manufactured. It’s prioritized despite contrary facts proving otherwise.
Over two-thirds of world nations support Palestinian statehood. Perhaps one day they all will, except America, Israel and small Pacific Islands Washington controls.
Avital Leibovich is a former IDF spokeswoman. She heads the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in Israel. She opposes Palestinian statehood, saying:
“Recent statements by Sweden’s new prime minister and a nonbinding British resolution recognizing a Palestinian state could damage peace prospects by creating false expectations among Palestinians.”
“Such recognition is premature. A two-state solution can only be achieved through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.”
Fact: Peace process hypocrisy is the greatest hoax in modern times.
Fact: Decades of talks were dead on arrival.
Fact: Israel deplores peace.
Fact: It prioritizes violence and instability.
Fact: It categorically rejects Palestinian statehood.
Fact: It doesn’t negotiate. It demands.
Fact: It wants its interests alone served.
Fact: It wants Palestinians denied all rights.
Fact: It goes all-out against them.
Fact: It gives them three choices: submit, leave or die.
Don’t expect Leibovich to explain. She one-sidedly represents Israeli interests.
They reflect over-the-top racism. Permanent militarized occupation harshness. Unlimited settlement construction on stolen Palestinian land.
Premeditated wars of aggression at Israel’s discretion. Targeted assassinations. Mass arrests and imprisonment. Torture as official policy.
Leibovich supports what demands condemnation. Honor isn’t her long suit. Or defending right over wrong responsibly.
Efraim Halevy formerly headed Mossad. He shamelessly said recognizing Palestinian statehood “will cause serious and maybe irreparable damage to the Palestinian dream (for) independence.”
“On the ground it will not have any practical effect. Israel will not pull back its forces from their present positions, and for all practical purposes Israel will continue to control the situation.”
Fact: Numerous other countries became independent despite powerful forces opposing them.
Fact: World public opinion overwhelmingly supports Palestinian statehood.
Fact: So do most world nations.
Fact: Israel makes more enemies than friends.
Fact: It’s increasingly seen as a pariah state.
Fact: What can’t go on forever, won’t.
Fact: Expect Israel’s occupation to end one day.
Fact: Momentum favors Palestinian liberation.
Fact: It’s coming eventually no matter what Israel wants.
Caroline Glick is senior Jerusalem Post contributing editor. It’s a right-wing Israeli broadsheet.
“There should be no Palestinian state,” she says. “Recognizing ‘Palestine does not advance peace, it advances Israel’s ruin. Europeans should work to strengthen and expand Israel.”
She lied calling Gaza “a terror state run by [Hamas] jihadists . . She buried polar opposite hard truths.
Times editors published her rubbish. They print plenty of the own. One-sidedly favoring Israel. It’s longstanding Times policy.
They call Israeli aggression self-defense. Legitimate Palestinian self-self defense is called “terrorism.”
Nathan Thrall is International Crisis Group (ICG) senior Middle East/North Africa Program analyst.
ICG was founded in 1995 by former World Bank vice president Mark Malloch Brown and former US diplomat Morton Abramowitz. It supports special interests. It spurns popular ones.
According to Thrall, debating Palestinian statehood is “overwrought.”
He falsely claims “[b]oth parties to the conflict, including Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have already agreed that conflict-ending negotiations are to result in the creation of a Palestinian state.”
Netanyahu and likeminded hardliners categorically reject Palestinian statehood. Not now. Not ever.
They want Palestine entirely Judaized. Except for isolated worthless scrubland pockets.
Richard Ottoway is a UK conservative MP. He calls himself “a longtime friend of Israel.”
He ludicrously said it’s “been fighting for its existence since its birth.”
It waged lawless aggression leading up to an throughout its existence.
“I have stood by Israel through thick and thin,” said Ottoway. At the same time, he opposes its continued land grabs.
Especially 990 acres “a few days after” Operation Protective Edge (OPE) ended. It “outraged” him, he said.
At the same time, he irresponsibly said “Hamas has fired thousands of rockets indiscriminately toward Israel . . ”
He omitted explaining never preemptively. Only in self-defense. After multiple Israeli provocations. Or premeditated war like OPE.
He lied claiming Hamas “used its own people as human shields.” Israel alone uses Palestinians in this way repeatedly. Lawlessly. Clear evidence proves it.
Ottoway abstained from Parliament’s symbolic vote. He “hope[s] one day the Israelis and the Palestinians will reach an agreement that will bring lasting peace.” Without doing anything to support it.
Nadia Nijab heads the Al-Shaaka think tank: the Palestinian Policy Network. She’s an Institute for Palestine Studies senior fellow.
Today’s “problem lies in how Palestinian rights are defined and who is doing the defining,” she says.
PLO officials are “unrepresentative and indeed more responsive to the United States and other major powers than to Palestinians,” she added.
Nihab sees “no political outcome in the foreseeable future.” She believes “European recognition of a Palestinian state could well pressure Israel to behave in accordance with international law.”
How so, she didn’t explain. Especially when Washington provides Israel unconditional support. It holds veto power over Security Council resolutions supporting Palestinian rights.
Omar Barghouti co-founded the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
He believes Britain’s parliamentary vote may signal “where the wind is blowing . . ”
“If it is the first step toward recognizing the irrefutable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, then it would be a positive contribution to establishing a just and sustainable peace in accordance with international law,” he said.
“If it is simply meant to resuscitate a comatose two-state solution dictated by Israel, it would simply perpetuate an unjust order.”
Palestinian self-determination includes their “inalienable right . . to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted.”
Israel “fiercely reject[s] full equality, in law and policies, for its Palestinian citizens because that would undermine, de facto and de jure, its continuation as an exclusionary Jewish state.”
“Palestinians expect world governments, especially the British, with its direct responsibility in creating the question of Palestine, to recognize, first and foremost, our right to have equal rights to all other nations and all other human beings.”
Instead of featuring Barghouti and likeminded Palestinian justice supporters, Times editors overwhelmed him with opposition views.
Ones expressing longstanding Times policy. Ones against justice long denied.
Wall Street Journal editors had their say. They headlined “The Parliament of Palestine. “British MPs show[ed] the extent of their anti-Israeli leanings,” they said.
“]W]here [do] these MPs get their news,” they asked?
“Hamas began the war with indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel, and the terror group continued it by routinely violating ceasefires agreed by Israel.”
Fact: It bears repeating. Israel waged premeditated lawless aggression.
Fact: Hamas responded in self-defense.
Fact: Israel repeatedly violated ceasefire terms.
Fact: Hamas responded defensively.
“It’s been a long time since Britain’s voice counted in the Middle East, which may explain the recourse to meaningless gestures,” said Journal editors. “Too bad even those gestures are wrong,” they claimed.
It’s longer than modern memory since Journal editors acted responsibly. They oppose what warrants support. They endorse what demands condemnation.
Don’t expect them to explain. Or Times editors for publishing views unfit to print.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” Visit his blog at sjlendman.blogspot.com Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
