Why Don't Maddow and Olbermann Deal With The Middle East?
I like to focus on instances where free speech is suppressed on Middle East issues because the absence of free debate affects policy and perpetuates the status quo. . Here is a story about Clark University's decision to cancel a speech by Norman Finkelstein, the author and lecturer on Mideast issues and the Holocaust. It is all too typical.
To be honest, I would never invite Finkelstein to speak anywhere. During the 2006 Lebanon war, he was a cheerleader for Hezbollah. He is not antiwar but rather anti-Israel. Whoever is fighting the Israeli army has his unabashed support.
Here is the most nauseating Finkelstein moment. He's chiding a Lebanese journalist for not being willing to fight to the death against Israel. Here he is leading a Hezbollah rally at the UN.
I can't stand the guy. But I think he has the right to be heard on campus.
Read Clark's justification for banning Finkelstein. It is ridiculous. He can't speak because speakers arriving two days later may disagree with him. What?
The Clark case is easy. But here is a harder one. What does it mean when the dog doesn't bark?
It seems to me that during and after the Gaza war liberal antiwar icons Keith Olbemann and Rachel Maddow almost never talked about it. Is it possible that neither had opinions about it?
No, neither is possible. I have absolutely no doubt that both Olberman and Maddow were aware of the war, were aware of America's support for it, were appalled...but did not speak out because they -- like most in the media -- won't go near this issue because of potential problems with management, advertisers, and outside pressure groups.
When it comes to Finkelstein, I object to his silencing only out of principle. When it comes to my MSNBC favorites, and other liberal types, I object because their silencing contributes to the continuation of disastrous Middle East policies. This is the only issue where the silence of the doves is the rule and we should all know it and protest it.
Maddow and Olbermann might want to take a look at what Roger Cohen has been doing on the op-ed page of the Times lately. He is taking the issue on, big time, and he has honed in on the neocons' current mania -- war with Iran. The neocons, the Likudniks and the whole status quo crowd are howling. But Cohen is digging in deeper. McCarthyism only collapses when challenged.
So Olberman and Maddow didn't talk about the Gaza war.
You want the United States to FORCE Israel to adopt the Saudi peace plan. But
"As the Middle East Media Research Institute chronicled in a report on the proceedings, Assad successfully abrogated [at last month's Arab League summit at Doha] the so-called Saudi peace plan that the Arab League adopted in 2002. According to a new Syrian-backed resolution, any Arab rapprochement with Israel would be contingent on Israel first destroying itself by withdrawing into indefensible borders and being overwhelmed by millions of hostile foreign Arab immigrants."
( from Our World: Iran's Western enablers by Caroline Glick )
I haven't seen you say a word about it? Is it possible I missed your commentary? Because it's certainly NOT possible that you didn't know about it.
April 14, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's an unbiased source.
April 14, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
As is Rosenberg.
Here's another take, complete with citation of original sources.
If you don't believe the sources cite an interpretation in opposition. I don't think you can. I think you'll simply fall back on ad hominems and irrelevant other issues to complain about.
Keep in mind that I represent those who think talking is useless in many cases, that war is necessary to settle many fundamental issues. Your side is the one which claims diplomacy has supplemented, or could supplant, war. Prove it. Because I'm sure a hell of a lot easier to deal with than people who have armies at their beck and call.
April 14, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a January article from the NYTimes in which Assad is calling the Saudi peace proposal dead. That's two months before the Doha summit. So where's Rosenberg on this development? I say he's in the Finklestein camp; It's all the fault of the Jews. All of it. Every bit of evil in the world. Every bit of conflict.
April 14, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
grow up.
you sound like a loon.
April 14, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, that an intelligent, sourced response to the question of why Rosenberg didn't comment on Arab repudiation of the Saudi plan at the recent Doha conference.
Typical, though, and a very good explanation of why left-wing, anti-war lunatics are treated as such.
April 14, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goshopappadooley! That doesn't sound very multicultural. I mean... what's good for the goose ought'a be good for the f*ckin' gander. Right?
April 14, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel Maddow Show: History of Conflicts in Gaza
Countdown: Hillary Mann Leverett on the Conflict in Gaza
April 14, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops..., correction:
Maddow: Gaza
April 14, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice find, Bar K.
In MJ's world, there are those who agree with him, those who are too cowed by the feared "Israel Lobby" to openly agree with him, and the Israel-Lobby-loving, divided-loyalty-feeling, ethnic-chauvinistically-thinking neocons who exert a stranglehold over US policy, which, without their nefarious influence, would naturally reflect the interests of the first two groups.
The idea that reasonable people might actually disagree about some of these issues seems not to have occurred to him.
April 14, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The idea that reasonable people might actually disagree about some of these issues seems not to have occurred to him."
Oh no. He may not be terribly bright but he's no moron and he's been in this game a long time and had every accusation in the books thrown at him.
He's certainly aware that many reasonable people disagree with him but he doesn't care. He makes his living doing what he does and his position protects that which is most valuable to him (to the best of his ability); his family and his personal comfort. He's willing to sacrifice all of Israel in service of those goals.
April 14, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you posted the URL of Rachel's piece. Unfortunately, she turns out either uninformed, biased or pro Israeli, based on her short history and current events regarding Gaza, Palestine the PA and Hamas. According to her, Israel is totally the victim and not to blame for killing six men, women and children for every Israeli killed. Should Hamas stop its terrorism against Israel; damn straight. Should Israel stop its expansion and terrorism against Palestine; damn straight. It's just Israel is a better journalistic victim that Arabs and Palestinians.
As far as Keith Olbermann is concerned, he started with a bang and is, in my opinion, limping along on platitudes, commentary and some good analysis.
April 14, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Omigod, you mean he's just making stuff up about lack of TV coverage because it fits his narrative? Well, I never, imagine that!
April 15, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my favorite Caroline Glick quote:
"The people often cannot tell you what they think of things because they can be physically punished," Glick said. "This is not just an Israeli problem. This is a problem for reporters in any place that is not free. "
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Glick
Kinda makes MJ's point, doesn't it?
April 14, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
April 14, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media and congress is filled with PEP liberals, progressives except for Palestine.
April 14, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
First thing I found simply by googling "Olbermann gaza". Don't know what else is there and, candidly, don't really care. :)
http://ledaro.blogspot.com/2009/01/keith-olbermann-on-gaza.html
April 14, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above was supposed to be in reply to Bar K's find.
April 14, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a little surprised to watch Maddow's framing of the Gaza situation back in January. Rachel's implication is that Hamas was equally if not even more at fault than Israel in the lead up to this recent tragedy.
There is a huge factor missing in her analysis. It is context. Gaza is essentially an open-air prison where 1.5 million Palestinians are crammed into a tiny strip of land surrounded by Israel, except for a short barricaded border with Egypt and a coastline closed by a naval blockade. Their inhabitants are totally dependant on Israel for their survival. So why did Palestinian parties launch these missiles? In June a six month cease fire was agreed to by Hamas and Israel, whereby Israel was to ease its economic throttlehold on Gaza and end the blockade of vital food and medical supplies into Gaza. In return Hamas agreed to stop firing rockets into Israel, which they did. But the blockade did not cease and suffering in Gaza intensified. Then on 4 November the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. So this was not a gratuitous violation of the ceasefire by the Palestinians. Even after this Hamas offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel end its blockade. Israel refused. Israel then proceeded with a massive bombing assault on Gaza that killed over a thirteen hundred helpless Palestinians including hundreds of women and children. Altogether Israel suffered the loss of approximately 13 civilians and soldiers.
To read an honest discussion of this recent tragedy go to the London Review of Books and read the analysis by Henry Siegman, former director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America. It can be accessed at:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html
April 14, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
RWH, though I did not support the attacks on Gaza and do not support the blockade, if you want to get the "context" right, you should at least mention that the rockets on Israeli civilians began 8 years ago, and that the blockade was the consequence of Hamas' armed and illegal revolution that impeached the PA in Gaza and made those rockets an official policy. Though there's every reason to be horrified by Israel's violent reaction to these rockets, one should at least acknowledge that they have very little to do with the blockade, that began years and years after Hamas started with them.
April 14, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe because Olberman and Maddow know a lost cause when they see one.
April 14, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it that makes MJ Rosenberg think that he can tell Olberman and Maddow what they can, or even should, talk about on their shows?
April 15, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
its obvious the content of what passes for news or opinion in this country is totally controlled.
sure once in a awhile something slips by.
but there is always a price to be payed.
and since most people either could care less the lies they tell or really do want to keep their jobs they dont fight back.
but there are a few doing good reporting if only online like,William Greider or Chris Hedges..or Jonathan Cook.
and there are others.
the point is nothing is permanent.
there will be no war against Iran while Obama holds the presidency and if the usual suspects push to hard they run the risk of Obama taking his case directly to the people.
i dont know if all the crying here is real but i hope if that happens the pain is as fake as the arguments are or there will be a lot of hurting people.
April 14, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel Maddow, like her boss at Air America (Mark Green), will defend Israel no matter what Israel does.
Regarding Norman Finkelstein: I find his analysis compelling. He is not diplomatic. He can be a pain in the ass, but saints often are. He has been right long before Michael Walzer began to part of the truth about Israel. He has been right long before MJ left AIPAC.
April 14, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no he isn't. He never says that. Not in this video, anyway. I watched it several times.
He's chiding her about the Lebanese welcoming George Bush (and Condoleezza Rice, whom he calls a freak) to Lebanon.
He also says he understands the choice to not resist. But he explains the price the Arabs will pay if they do that.
He never says anything remotely like "fight to the death against Israel." Geez.
It's one thing to hate Finkelstein. It's another to completely misquote him.
Besides, the journalist is completely calm. She doesn't cringe or react. She seems to be comfortable allowing him to express himself the way he needs to.
April 14, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
gasket, you are implying Rosenberg is spinning something someone said so that it no longer accurately represents what they said, and that we can't trust him, but have to check out the original link. Gettoutahere, I simply can't imagine that in my wildest! Don't be surprised if Rosenberg clears this up right soon by revealing you as a bitter neo-con troll.
April 15, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love readtoblowagasket's kitty.
April 14, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
After thirty years in broadcasting business, an old street dog like Olbermann understands that even broaching the subject of Israel in an evenhanded manner will only bring one grief.
Judging from her Gaza invasion interviews with correspondent Richard Engel, Maddow believes that Israel's actions are always just.
April 14, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am in a dilemma. I cannot identify who Barack Obama really is. Is he a closet neocon who shrewdly camouflaged his identity throughout the campaign and who now is slowly showing his colors with appointments like Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross to his inner circle? He has been quietly preserving many of the hated Bush policies, such as warrantless wiretapping, continuation of government secrecy under the moniker of national security, support for an even bigger defense budget, and escalation of the war in Afghanistan. And now we have this whole mess with the financial collapse and the appointment of many of the same people who presided over the creation of the problem in the first place. But two things (related) worry more than anything else: (1) Obama’s apparent ignoring of the plight of the Palestinians; he has had precious little to say about this issue and his silence during the Gaza massacre was breathtaking. (2) Obama’s refusal, at least publicly, to rule out an attack against Iran, by Israel or the U.S.
Or…….. could it be that Barack Obama is 3 jumps ahead of everyone else? Has he been keeping his powder dry for the inevitable falling out with Israel that will be required if anything is to change in the ME? It could be he is far more politically savvy than even some of his most ardent supporters could have imagined. Why else would he waste progressive political capital by appointing someone like Judd Gregg to his cabinet, or a neocon like Dennis Ross to the Iran portfolio? Is Obama making nice with his potential adversaries, preparing them for some surprises to come?
April 14, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or perhaps one could consider the argument raised by Haaretz journalist Zvi Bar'el (I couldn't find his latest articles in the English version, so no links), that perhaps Obama estimates that in the current political conditions his administration cannot achieve anything significant about the Israel-Palestinian conflict other than keeping it on low flames, and therefore he prefers to focus on US strategy far in the east, in Afghanistan and Iran. The amount of pressure he would have to put on the Israeli government is huge, and in current US political culture there's a fair chance that such an effort would fail, so he probably assumes there's no point in spending all this political capital on this issue like Clinton did in 2000. This is very unfortunate, but I seems like a reasonable explanation.
April 15, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not add Sy Hersch to the list who said "he would rather run naked through the streets than write about Israel/Palestine".
April 14, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ not only misquotes Norman Finkelstein, but he whitewashes the 2006 Lebanon War.
Finkelstein was correct in his analysis of that particular Israeli atrocity.
What is the standard Hasbara we hear all the time about Israel's foes? Human shields?
The US Army War College study on the 2006 war dispelled these fraudulent claims.
Finkelstein does not invent his arguments. He bases them on mainstream records. His style if polemical but at least he can back it up.
Why don't you debate him MJ? You know, since you can't stand the guy.
MJ is like every other Zionist. The so-called 'liberal' wing of the Jewish Establishment is no different from the right.
MJ shows his weakness here by denigrating Finkelstein.
Did his language upset your delicate sensibilities MJ?
I love how you make a point to mention his support for Hezbollah (Finkelstein supports them in a specific context, not overall support, just look up his comments on the matter) while assuming people don't think of Israel in the same implied manner.
We should all cheer Hezbollah on.
April 14, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "the silence of the doves"
Is this a sequel? (rhetorical)
Hannibal Lecter: "Then something woke you, didn't it? Was it a dream? What was it?"
Clarice Starling: "I heard a strange noise."
April 14, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally think it is awesome that MJ can read the minds of television news hosts and know their deepest, inner thoughts.
But seriously, folks. Olbermann and Maddow are just the Hannity and Beck of the left. That is, they live for ratings. So the tyranny is not coming from the networks but from their audience. And Americans, because of their largely Judeo-Christian heritage, just do not empathize with Palestinian Muslims, who are alien in their religion and culture. Just look at the Palestinian women ullulating(with joy or grief?) at the funerals of suicide bombers. We just don't get that. We can relate to the settlers with their Brooklyn accents. It's not some tyrannical Jew lobby; it's the Nielsen ratings.
Finkelstein is an interesting fellow who has been so embittered by his inability to negotiate the academic job market that he has become a shrill self-parody. I was involved in an online rhetoric forum with him several years ago. He had a total meltdown, like a ranting toddler, when he was asked basic questions about his rhetorical strategy, and it stunned even those who generally agreed with his politics. Whatever the origins of his lonely crusade, it has become all about him, so I can't blame Clark for disinviting him. Supporting free speech does not mean you have to welcome someone at your institution; it means you don't protest their right to voice their views. If he wants to stand and rant in the quad, they should let him.
April 14, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "the silence of the doves"
MY CONTRIBUTION: "A Nation of Animal Lovers Closes Its Eyes to the Massacre at the Gaza Zoo" by MISSY COMLEY BEATTIE, 02-06-09
EXCERPT - "A tragic tale of dead animals vs. exposing the brutality of Israeli troops. Wolf, Anderson, Campbell, Suzanne, Chris, Norah, Contessa, Rachel, Joe, David, Sean, Bill, Megan, and Shephard are probably working on a way to spin this to suit AIPAC. Perhaps, something like convincing us that a Gaza Zoo animal might be used as a shield by Hamas “terrorists.”...
'...There was not a single person in this zoo. Just the animals. We all fled before they came. What purpose does it serve to walk around shooting animals and destroying the place?’
Inside one cage lie three dead monkeys and another two in the cage beside them. Two more escaped and have yet to return. He points to a clay pot. ‘They tried to hide,’ he says of a mother and baby half-tucked inside...."
ENTIRE POST - http://www.counterpunch.org/beattie02062009.html
April 14, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The very idea of an ubiased opinion is deeply flawed. I might be biased towards putting out the real story--that is I might be biased towards the truth-- (whether I succeed in grasping the truth or not is another story, it is the intention here that counts)you might be biased towards furthering your ideological agenda, but there is nobody that I know of who speaks from a bias-free zone.
When Jack Webb's Joe Friday demanded "jut the facts Ma'am" he was biased towards solving his case and probably biased against listening to a melodramatic tirade. That's as close as I like to get at being "unbiased".
Just as Albert Einstein showed us that there is no universal "right" time we have to accept that there is no universal "unbiased" pronouncement.
So when someone accuses me of being biased I have to chuckle: sure I'm biased isn't everybody?
April 14, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ's incessant one-note chatter about Israel has started to grate heavily on my ears, but I do think he makes a fair point here. I watch Olbermann and Madow regularly and I think it's fair to say, as MJ does, that they "almost never talked about" the Gaza war. They did, as some have noted, mention it once or twice, but didn't devote all that much airtime to a story that was fairly significant and seems to have deserved more attention.
From what Olbermann and Madow did say, I think Olbermann would probably have been highly critical of Israel and Madow much less so if they spoke more openly about the war. Everyone knows saying anything about Israel (and especially anything critical of Israel) is likely to create controversy. So everyone with half a brain who values his or her career wades into this morass with caution. The reality, though, is that even if Olbermann and Madow were to talk endlessly about Israel, it would likely make no difference at all in what actually happens. People have been spewing volumes on Israel for decades and nothing ever changes. So why bother? Especially when broaching the subject just creates hassle and headaches. As long as Israel and its supporters (including MJ) insist on maintaining a Jewish ethnocracy in Israel, the only solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is to get rid of Palestinians. All the talk of peace processes and roadmaps and two states and who is and who isn't to blame for the mess is just a way of filling time until the final solution can achieved. If MJ really wants to see change, he should start to challenge Israel's ethnocratic ideology. But he's an ethnocrat himself and therefore is as guilty as anyone else for the endless chatter about side issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict and the utter silence about the real issues.
April 15, 2009 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with LD. Hezbollah was fighting a defensive war and succeeded. They should be applauded in that regard. Mr. Rosenberg should debate Dr. Finkelstein one-on-one.
Re: the IDF; the US seems to be OK with bullies as long as they're *our* bullies.
April 15, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somibear:
I do not believe you. If Finkelstein had had such a meltdown, I suspect that I would of heard about it. Years ago, on the History News Network, someone commenting on an article by Neve Gordon claimed that Raul Hilberg (then still living) had broken with Finkelstein. In fact, as I soon learned, Hilberg had recently (in the past few months) invited Finkelstein to stay at his place.
April 15, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - what's wrong in supporting Hezbollah anyways? israel was the clear aggressor in Lebanon, committed countless attrocities and bombed civilians deliberately and methodically (civilians who had the misfortune of living in houses israel selected for its 'shock and awe"). In that conflict, Hezbollah was in the right and israel in the wrong. What israel has done to the lebanese was evil, just like what it's done to the gazans. For that reason, Hezbollah is the one that took the higher moral ground ain the aftermath of the war, and won the support of most lebanese in the process. Not only has it become a legitimate political entity in the country, but progressive people around the world support - and should - hezbollah's right to defend its country and its people against those who would do them harm. They may be muslim, but their movement is a national one, no different than the Spanish who fought against fascism in a civil war, or the socialists in Chile, or, for that matter, garibaldi in italy back in the days.
MJ, you still have some distance to go before you fully internalize that Israel, far from being a state based on Jewish values, has become a militarized, arrogant, expansionist state where the majority of the population gives not a hoot about other people in the world, including the jewish diaspora, and including you. It's a sick puppy, not a healthy collective, and for that reason, if no other, Norman Finkelstein is right in most of his analysis. brittle perhaps, But right.
I already feel sad for the people of America (Jews and non-jews alike) when the disillusion about Israel's moral dissolution finally sets in .
April 15, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, MJ shamelessly tries to disparage Norman Finkelstein with no intellectual depth.
To begin with:
Norman has long dedicated his life to demolishing the lies and distortions that predominate the I/P conflict. When MJ was disseminating propaganda tracts for AIPAC, Finkelstein was standing alone and questioning and debunking the merits of such twaddle. Similarly, when MJ was fatuously defending "Israel's right to defense" during its aggressive slaughter of Lebanon, Finkelstein was not. Rather, he said that within the context of defending the Lebanese, it was Hezbollah who repelled Israel's attacks and he supported their efforts on behalf of the Lebanese. He clearly stated he had no interest in their politics but thought that they were the only group deterring the IDF.
Naturally MJ cant stand the guy. Finkelstein is a man who, while certainly polemical, is not afraid to speak truth to power. He did not spend years in hiding only to voice qualified criticisms from within the confines of the well situated world of DC politics.
And unlike MJ, who is busy curry favor with politicians, Finkelstein's work has garnered support from the brightest and most knowledgeable figures in the field. Among them: Raul Hillberg, Christopher Browning, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Robert Fisk, David Hirst, Sara Roy, Edward Said, John Mearsheimer, Joseph Massad, Neve Gordon, Tom Segev, Yehoshua Porath, William Quandt and countless others.
It is one thing to dislike Finkelstein or his tone, but it is another to suggest his work is marginal and lacking erudition. As others have noted, MJ cannot hold an intellectual candle to Finkelstein and for all his disparaging talk, I doubt very much MJ would like to debate Norman on the issues.
So MJ, while I respect the work you do within the confines of mainstream discourse, I suggest you stop inverting the work of others with whom "you cannot stand." Bring to bear some intellectual vigor in your arguments or let it go.
April 16, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink