So Just Who is Sheera Frenkel?

Something caught my ear in Sheera Frenkel's vacuous piece on the Palestinian Papers this morning. Discussing effect of the Palestinian Papers on Saeb Erekat, Frenkel says,

"Erekat says he resigned in disgrace, because of leaks someone in his own office provided to Al-Jazeera, the popular Arabic satellite news channel. Thousands of documents - nicknamed the Palileaks - revealed much about the peace talks over the last decade."

"Palileaks"? I'm a bit of a news junkie and follow developments in the Middle East, but I have never seen or heard the Palestine Papers described as the "Palileaks." I thought maybe I had missed something and did a Google search on the term. The results are quite interesting: almost all of them are pro-Zionist sources. The first two are telling: The Jerusalem Post (that Frenkel has written for) and the an article from CBN (the far-right Christian Broadcasting Network). Interestingly if you search "Palileaks" on Al-Jazeera or The Guardian (the two press outlets that actually released the Papers) you get nothing.

Sheera Frenkel has done some pretty awful reporting from Israel, and I want to know who this reporter is - you know, the basics: her education, what jobs has she held, has she done internships, etc. NPR has no bio on her, and I still haven't found anything substantive online, except that she has written for the Christian Science Monitor, The Jerusalem Post, The Times of London, and McClatchy. I did turn up two interesting bits on Frenkel: she has an article on the Christian-Zionist Frontline Israel website and in the PDF brochure from a Crossing Borders Media Conference, August 2007, in Bonn, she is identified as being from California and an Israeli citizen (which seems relevant for a reporter covering the Israel/Palestine conflict).

If anyone finds a legitimate and relevant bio of Sheera Frenkel and can send it to me, I'll post it here. Until then I'll drop a line to the Ombudsman and request that NPR at least provide the basics on Frenkel who is a frequent contributor.

As a postscript, I should note that back on January 25th, I posted on NPR's distorted coverage of the Palestinian Papers back when they were released. A few days later Lourdes Garcia-Navarro did a decent piece that looked at the Palestinian negotiators' disappointment in the Obama administration as revealed in the papers. But that's it, and the critiques of my first post remain valid: NPR has been mute on the major revelation of the Papers: the utter sham of the entire "peace process" which has only furthered the violent US-supported Israeli policy of colonizing the Occupied Territories and destroying the possibility of any meaningful Palestinian state.

Tank Diving with Jackie Northam

Jackie Northam is one of the worst of the Think Tank Scrapers™ at NPR. She gained early recognition on this blog for her tanking prowess way back in Oct. 2006, again in Dec. 2006 and March 2007, and was still going strong in March 2009. So on Thursday morning when I heard that Northam was covering US and Israeli talks focusing on Egypt, I wondered how deep her think tank plunge would go. I think she may have set a new low mark in this area.

Northam's first "expert" is Robert Danin of the Council on Foreign Relations. The most stellar part of his bio has to be his role as

"Former head, Office of the Quartet Representative, Tony Blair, in Jerusalem" (Tony Blair...ouch!).

Danin also has been employed and recognized by the US State Department with "Superior and Meritorious Honor Awards."

Northam's second guest, Aaron David Miller, from the Woodrow Wilson Center is also a standard State Department award winning expert. As Miller's bio indicates:

"...he served at the Department of State as an advisor to six secretaries of state, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process....received the department's Distinguished, Superior, and Meritorious Honor Awards."

But it is Northam's third expert that sets a new low standard. To bring in the Israeli perspective Northam features Dan Schueftan, a professor who has made the following classy and nuanced remarks:

• "The Arabs are the biggest failure in the history of the human race.”
• "While Israel sends while sends a sophisticated satellite into space, the Arabs come up with a new kind of hummus." "
• "There is nothing more fucked up under the sun than the Palestinians."
• "The Palestinians are a repulsive part of the Middle East, let’s leave those ratbags."
• "All over the Arab world they fire shots at weddings in order to prove that they have at least one thing that is hard and functional and can shoot."

How's that for a diverse line-up? And what do these three have to say about the situation in Egypt?

• Danin makes the relatively innocuous comment that "There have been a few comments out of Israel, but for the most part they're keeping quiet, and that is wise."
• Miller also contributes a rather dull observation: "I think the administration is doing a lot of hand-holding and minding of the Israelis. But then again, why would the Israelis bet on our assurances?" Later his comments expose his State Department roots, noting that "The critical point will come once the transition is secured and once a process of political reform is underway, to see exactly how constraining the new Egypt is to American interests, how hostile it may be toward Israeli interests."
• Schueftan - speaking like the Neocon that he is - rails "There has been almost unanimity here in understanding the significance of the American policy vis-a-vis Egypt, namely you can't trust the Americans. More specifically, you can't trust Barack Obama.

Of all the substantive reflections and analyses that one could find on the effects that the Egyptian uprising might have on Israel and US behaviors in the region, this lousy lineup is the best that Northam and NPR can offer.

When the Shit Hits the Fan - Make Brownies!

The bombshell release of The Palestine Papers by Al Jazeera and The Guardian hit the news this week and provide stark evidence of the moral bankruptcy of the Israeli government and the US government in the sham "peace process" - (not to mention the craven subservience and collaborative nature of the Palestinian Authority). As The Guardian editorialized

"It is hard to tell who appears worst: the Palestinian leaders, who are weak, craven and eager to shower their counterparts with compliments; the Israelis, who are polite in word but contemptuous in deed; or the Americans, whose neutrality consists of bullying the weak and holding the hand of the strong. Together they conspire to build a puppet state in Palestine, at best authoritarian, at worst a surrogate for an occupying force."

So what does NPR do when someone else has done all the work for them and hands them a huge trove of damming evidence?

First, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro did a decent job of reporting on reaction by the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, and the Israeli government.

This modest piece was followed by a sad hodgepodge of spin from the awful Michele Kelemen - a story that the NPR scribe monkeys titled "Release of Palestinian Papers Raises Issues for the US." Raises issues!? Sheesh...

Melissa Block introduces the piece, asking "And how does the U.S. try to revive talks when all sides seem to be losing credibility?" as if the complete lack of US legitimacy and credibility has not been exposed in these documents. From there Michele Kelemen turns to Professor Kurtzer of Princeton who states that one thing the documents show is that the gaps between Israel and the Palestinians

"are far narrower than people would have assumed....therefore...the administration...now has evidence that the bridge can be built."

Kelemen then turns to - as she says -

"Another U.S. veteran of the peace process, Robert Danin, of the Council on Foreign Relations, cautions against reading too much into the documents."

Kelemen and NPR definitely take this advice to heart, and - instead of any scrutiny or critical assessment of these damning records of the US/Israel/PA attempt to destroy any hope of justice for Palestinians - opts to continue airing the views of other US official participants in the peace process sham. As if to drive the point home that the revelations will have no effect on Michele Kelemen and NPR's determination to echo the views of the US State Department, Kelemen allows State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley to have the final word:

"The best and only way to fundamentally resolve the core issues, reach an agreement and end the conflict once and for all is through a negotiation, not through unilateral statements, unilateral actions."

Unbelievably, it's not meant as some kind of sick joke...

Warped Times and Time Warps

(image source)

Israel / Palestine

Amazingly, and almost three years to the day, NPR reprises its typically pro US/Israel coverage of the war on Palestinians with a piece that is essentially a repetition of the piece it ran three years ago. Back then it was the much-touted, amazing Bush inspired Annapolis conference for peace in the Middle East and Michele Kelemen was all over it with Aaron David Miller and Robert Malley representing the State Department far right view and the State Department center right view of the matter respectively. Guess what tonight's ATC piece on the Obama State Department's Unbelievalble 90-day Breakthrough for Israel featured? No really, go out on a limb and take a guess:

Kelemen: "Israeli officials say the package includes $3 billion in fighter jets, continued diplomat cover at the United Nations and a promise that the U.S. won't ask Israel to renew the settlement moratorium again three months from now. Woodrow Wilson Center scholar Aaron David Miller says it's a high price to pay but may be worth it."

and

Kelemen: "Rob Malley of the International Crisis Group has his doubts and is troubled by the apparent U.S. assurances that it won't push the settlement issue beyond the 90-day moratorium."

Can you say Groundhog Day?

Afghanistan

And then there's those crazy stopped clocks of Afghanistan. Exactly 17 months ago NPR and General McChrystal assured us that in 12 to 18 months we'd all know whether or not the Obama Nobel Prize winning Afghanistan Surge™ was working. Well it isn't - as any joker could tell you. But don't let past claims get in the way of NPR's hopeful assessments of the new endless war with magically shifting timelines:

First there's Julie McCarthy on ATC:

McCarthy: "Ambassador Holbrooke said...marks a turning point for American and allied forces fighting in Afghanistan...the United States will be in a transition mode with a target date of the end of 2014 for Afghanistan to take the lead for its own security....said it was important to make clear this is not an exit strategy, but a transition strategy....The U.S. and its allies would remain in Afghanistan past 2014. But for training and mentoring...The 2014 date marks the most concrete blueprint to end the war since the president took office. President Obama has set next summer as a starting point for the gradual drawdown of U.S. combat personnel. His envoy said July 2011 still stands."

Makes perfect sense to me (hee, hee).

And then Bob Siegel and Tom Bowman also on ATC:

Siegel: "Well, 2014, the deadline, is still four years off. What do people think there? Is there any way to judge if these forces can actually be ready to take over by that time?"

Bowman: "Well, it's possible. And four years is a long way off, of course, and that would give them time to build up their junior leaders especially. But be careful by the term they're using - takeover. I think even if all works as planned by 2014, and that's frankly a very big if, there will still be a lot of American troops here helping with training and especially logistics."

Now you understand don't you? The 12 to 18 month window was so we could get all geared up for the 3-4 year window, by which time we should be all set for the 10-50 year plan which NPR will no doubt explain. Also worth noting in this sad coverage was Tom Bowman's super empathetic coverage of the ruthless, cynical JSOC night raids that practically guarantee no end to the Afghanistan tragedy. When Siegel asks what's wrong with the night raids Bowman states:

"Well, this isn't a new complaint. But Karzai is rightly concerned about it. The night raids are more likely to get civilians killed, mistakes can be made. You go to the wrong house or the wrong compound. But the U.S. sees this as critical in their efforts to really bring the Taliban to its knees. A NATO officer I spoke with in Kabul says there have been more than 1,000 raids by U.S. Special Forces troops over just the past several months. Hundreds of Taliban have been killed or captured in those raids. So I think Karzai's complaints will, frankly, be dismissed."

Notice how completely Bowman accepts that the civilians are killed only by mistakes and how he asserts that "hundreds of Taliban have been killed or captured" with absolutely no confirming evidence. I challenge anyone to watch and/or listen to Jeremy Scahill and Rick Rowley discuss their investigations of these night raids and not be struck by their courageous reporting and humanity as opposed to NPR's lazy and crass attitude toward the misery and horror that the US is visiting upon Afghanistan.

Listener Care - NPR Style

Earlier this month I posted on NPR's false claim that in Israel "hate crimes are almost unknown." In addition to the post I contacted the Ombudsman with the following:

On Sunday, August 3rd, during the hourly five minute news updates, I repeatedly heard Linda Gradstein assert in reporting on the anti-gay killings in Israel that "The shooting has shocked many in Israel where hate crimes are almost unknown." This is false and misleading: 1) In May of 1990 an Israeli gunman killed 7 and wounded 10 Palestinian day laborers not far from Tel Aviv in Israel. 2) On August 5, 2005 an Israeli gunman killed four Israeli Arabs and wounding 13 others on a bus in Israel and 3) on August 17, 2005 - though not in Israel proper - an Israeli citizen killed 3 and wounded 2 random Palestinians near a settlement in the West Bank. Does NPR only consider deadly, unprovoked attacks "hate crimes" only if they don't involve Arab Israelis or Palestinians. You owe your listeners a correction and an apology.

Well, about a week ago I received a "response" in my email from "NPR - Listener Care" :

Dear Listener;

Thank you for contacting the NPR Office of the Ombudsman. We appreciate your taking the time to write regarding NPR's Middle East coverage and take your comments seriously.

For future reference, some of your concerns may be addressed on the Ombudsman's weekly column, which you can find on NPR's Ombudsman page.

Like many media outlets, NPR faces challenges in reporting events in the Middle East and elsewhere. No matter what the issue, however, NPR strives to adhere to the highest journalistic standards. Our goal is to report the stories factually and in context. The balance between the day's news and the historical context is always considered.

Because of intense interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, NPR makes available free transcripts of its coverage.

NPR's commitment is to ensure that its reporting of Middle East events will continue to provide an important and reliable service to our listeners.

Journalism is an imperfect craft and mistakes can occur. Your concern will be forwarded to the appropriate person within NPR's news division.

Sincerely,

Office of the Ombudsman
NPR

Oh wow, NPR takes my comments seriously! And they might or might not address them on the Ombudsman's erratic (and often irrelevant) column. But no matter how inaccurate and slanted the coverage - NPR adheres to the highest journalistic standards. Hey, even if you point out specific falsehoods, NPR claims a commitment to factual reporting with historical context! If there were distortions and outright lies, no big deal because, you know, journalism is such an imperfect craft and mistakes can occur.

I am so reassured...

Superhumans and Subhumans on NPR

(more information about Shaloman)

Covering the anti-gay shootings and killings in Tel Aviv, NPR's hourly news bulletin this Sunday morning stated the following:

(Dave Pignanelli): "Officials say they believe it is the worst hate crime in in Israel in decades."
(Linda Gradstein): "The shooting has shocked many in Israel where hate crimes are almost unknown."

Worst hate crime in decades? Hate crimes almost unknown? Ignoring the bitter irony of "hate crimes almost unknown" in a state that has a general policy of state run hate crimes against non-citizens in territory it controls - can one find evidence of deadly attacks by individual Israelis against people based solely on race, religion, etc?

Here are a few I found in about 5 minutes of Googling on the Internets:

• May of 1990 a lone Israeli gunman killed 7 and wounded 10 Palestinian workers not far from Tel Aviv in Israel.
• November of 1992 a grenade attack on an Arab market in Jerusalem killed 1 and wounded 11. Palestinians.
• August 5, 2005 an Israelis gunman killed four Israeli Arabs and wounding 13 others on a bus in Israel.
• August 17, 2005 - though not in Israel proper, an Israeli citizen killed 3 and wounded 2 random Palestinians near a settlement in the West Bank.

These incidents are clearly recognizable as standard hate crimes, but if your news coverage is almost always pro-Israeli government/military, it's hard not to adopt the same (widespread and very much alive) racist ideology that fuels Israeli expansionism and militarism and degrades the humanity of Arabs to the point where they have simply been erased.

Rare Praises for NPR

I was going to write about yesterday's deceitful and stupid report on the CIA by Pamela Hess of the AP (Media Bloodhound and Left I on the News often expose the AP for being the lazy rebroadcaster of US government propaganda that it is) or Juan Forero's (the reporter who couldn't read straight) pro bono work this morning for the owners of Venezuelan plantations (farms in Forero-speak) or Inskeep's coffee-clutch against the public health insurance option with the PR man for Wellpoint the parent company of a foundation that just happens to be one of NPR's biggest annual donors (hint: it's the California Endowment).

(From NPR's 2005 [most recent] Annual Report -PDF file)

But heck, it's summer and let's give credit where credit is due. First to Robert Siegel (there I said it!) who, on Monday's ATC, presented the Alito remarks about empathy as a counter to the attacks on Sotomayor's remarks about empathy. Siegel was interviewing the twittering Chuck Grassley of Iowa and confronted him with the Alito statements AND even asked a few follow-ups when Grassley tried to squirm out of making a complete ninny of himself. It was delicious.

More importantly, this morning Peter Kenyon actually covered the story of the 25 IDF soldiers who have documented the systematic war crimes of Operation Cast Lead. NPR actually sent a reporter on the ground in Gaza and talked to a Gazan who lost his parents to Israeli shooters in a case similiar to one related by an Israeli soldier. Several commenters on the web site of the story thanked NPR for reporting this - one who summed it up well as a commendable "baby step."

Listen Up Dummy

On Monday's ATC, Peres talks through Bob Siegel as this duo tries to drum up the fear factor regarding Iran. I loved this part in which Peres shares his political wisdom completely unchallenged:

"Political parties know that politics is based on compromises. Religious parties are uncompromising and that's the trouble with ___________________ ....they are so HOLY that they feel they have the right to kill other people...they are putting their own people in power. They've divided the Palestinian people. They invited an attack upon Gaza. They produce bloodshed..."

Only a complete dummy would miss the irony of Peres' description of the settler-friendly government of Israel Hamas.

Tristan Who?

(Click on photo to see the actual graphic in context)

How about NPR's stellar coverage of the Israeli attack on US citizen Tristan Anderson? Click the graphic below to see for yourself.



Coming 6 years after the murder of Rachel Corrie, I guess one shouldn't be surprised. As Mondoweiss points out, this is typical for the US press - but, really, with the videotaped evidence of the unprovoked attack and with ABC and even the AP covering it, you might think it would get a mention. Oh, but wait, unlike the Rachel Corrie killing, which NPR did cover, the US State Department hasn't cleared the way for our intrepid NPR journalists by calling for a probe first.

Under Fire

If you haven't heard yet, Chas Freeman - Obama's pick to head up the National Intelligence Council - has been torpedoed by the neocon "pro-Israel" extremists. NPR's threadbare coverage of this important story bears comparison with another Obama appointee who withdrew under criticism of his record: John Brennan.

I posted quite a bit on NPR's (and especially Tom Gjelten's) distortions regarding the withdrawal of Obama's first pick to head the CIA, John Brennan back in late November-early December last year. At the time several significant journalist bloggers strongly criticized the appointment of Brennan due to his praise of intelligence gathered by CIA torture and his explicit support of torture/rendition flights and illegal wiretapping. NPR repeatedly claimed that Brennan's only fault was being a CIA associate during the time that such practices were going on. Furthermore NPR frequently used derogatory terms to belittle the efforts of bloggers to highlight Brennan's documented shortcomings: "a campaign of liberal bloggers," "the hubbub these liberal groups were raising," and "those people who were stoking the fires of criticism."

Compare this with the general and normative descriptions given to the radical crew of Likudist neocons who attacked the Freeman nomination:

On Tuesday's ATC Gjelten stated that "in recent years as a private citizen Freeman has been an outspoken critic of some US policies, especially regarding China and Israel. Because of that his appointment...was vigorously criticized..."

Again on Tuesday, Mary Louise Kelly stated, "Freeman has a record of speaking his mind on policies regarding China and Israel in particular, so Freeman's nomination faced opposition from the start..."

Oddly we NEVER get the substance of Freeman's remarks. His thinking on Israel can be found here, and as Andrew Sullivan points out, the outrageous nature of his "anti-Israel" comments are as follows:

"Tragically, despite all the advantages and opportunities Israel has had over the fifty-nine years of its existence, it has failed to achieve concord and reconciliation with anyone in its region, still less to gain their admiration or affection. Instead, with each decade, Israel's behavior has deviated farther from the humane ideals of its founders and the high ethical standards of the religion that most of its inhabitants profess."

As far as Freeman's China remarks go, they appear to have been dishonestly obtained and purposely distorted. Other rather tame and rational ideas of Freeman's can be seen here. The important story is that the successful attack on Freeman indicates that even mild and perfectly rational critiques of US-Israeli foreign/military policy are not open for debate or discussion. (A policy which dovetails well with NPR's coverage of Israel-Palestine issues.)

Amazingly NPR never presents Freeman's remarks or focuses on the sleazy nature of the organizers of the attack on Freeman. Tonight Siegel had a thin and tepid interview with Freeman offering him the opportunity to rebut one critique of him, which he did quite effectively - but that's it.

Again, when presented with an easy opportunity to offer informative and substantive reports on a pressing issue - NPR fails to deliver.

If It Walks Like a Hawk, Talks Like a Hawk and Acts Like a Hawk , Then It Must Be...a Dove!

Worse than worthless. How else can one sum up NPR's coverage of the Israel - Palestine conflict?

Yesterday morning first featured Michele Kelemen redelivering Secretary of State Clinton's talking points (Hamas is a terrorist organization, blah, blah, blah, Hamas has to renounce violence, blah, blah, blah, US is giving tons of money to Gaza, blah, blah, etc.). OK, so she's accompanying Clinton on the trip, what else can you expect from NPR?

After that four minute-plus State Department summary what does NPR offer? Who would you go to for expert analysis? How about someone who has "has advised six American Secretaries of State." Yep, NPR serves up the stale ideas of Aaron David Miller - again. Miller has a way with words that only a six Secretary of State big league hitter could have. Here he is explaining Netanyahu:

"He's an ideologue; there's no question - leaning and ensconced in the right. But he's also capable of tremendous pragmatism...the history of peacemaking in Israel has really been a history dominated by the right or the center right. It's really a question in Israel of doves talking the talk, and hawks walking the walk. The right in Israel has been capable of actually making agreements with the Arabs and actually delivering on them."

Miller mentions Netanyahu's negotiations with Arafat at the Wye River and the Hebron withdrawal. Throughout the interview, Linda Wertheimer just nods along like a bobblehead. I think she forgot to see how the actual settlement policies went under Netanyahu back when he was Prime Minister. Nothing about what that great Hebron concession really meant for Palestinians. Nothing about Netanyahu's provocations that even an editor from the rightist WINEP takes note of. Nothing about Netanyahu's Jerusalem expansionist efforts.

It would be hard to do more pro-Likud, pro-Zionist coverage of the Palestine conflict. That someone on an NPR news report can claim in all seriousness - with no challenge from the the NPR host - that a person with such far-right and low ethical standards as Netanyahu is in fact the real pragmatist and the real peacemaker says far more about NPR's current orientation than it does about anything actually happening on the ground in Israel and Palestine.

Get Chavez

FAIR has an illuminating study recently published showing the huge disparity in US Newspaper coverage of human rights in Venezuela and Colombia over the past 10 years. Their findings show that in spite of Colombia having an "appalling" human rights record - horrific compared to Venezuela's shortcomings - the US press coverage focuses almost exclusively on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. Like the US Newspapers, NPR has a thing about focusing on Venezuela and Chavez and their main man for such assignments is Juan Forero.

Forero - always happy to push the State Department or CIA narrative on Latin America - is on this morning to portray the Chavez government as dangerously antisemitic.

Forero notes that despite Chavez' denunciation of the recent synagogue vandalism "questions are being raised over whether the government's recent language against Israel is creating a climate of hate. In January Chavez broke relations with Israel over that country's military strikes against Gaza. He called Israel's actions genocidal and expelled Israeli diplomats." Of course Forero doesn't note that Israel's violent actions against Palestinians fit the legal definition of genocide: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

Forero purports that Chavez's remarks have had "an aggressive tone" "that borders on antisemitic." Forero sneers that in the past Chavez claimed the 2002 coup against him was "hatched by the CIA and Israel's secret service Mossad" and "claimed the gunmen that day were Jewish." Now what kind of nutbar would claim Israel's involvement in genocidal and rightwing Latin American governments. He also fails to mention that a prominent Venezuelan rabbi was present with the coup leaders in the immediate aftermath of the coup.

Forero closes his piece with this chestnut: Andreas (a Holocaust survivor) "knew exactly what the ramifications were. He's a Romanian Jew who survived the Holocaust and then came to Venezuela..." Ah yes, the Chavez denunciations of Israel's slaughter of Palestinians caused the antisemitic attack on the synagogue and it's like Kristalnacht all over again!

Yardwork with Anne

Goodness me, I thought that Israel's Gaza Massacre was all about slaughtering children and attacking UN safe havens. How wrong I was - turns out that "Operation Cast Lead" was just a bunch of Israeli groundskeepers going in to Gaza to mow the grass. Seriously, I learned that from brush-clearing Anne Garrels tonight on NPR as she claimed to be presenting Israeli "analysts, who cover the political spectrum..." One of these brilliant scholars, "Efraim Inbar says, the best that can be hoped for is conflict management. He calls it mowing the grass." Honestly, that's what Garrels said, and then let Inbar speak for himself:

"We go in, do some damage to the terrorist infrastructure knowing well that this type of hatred toward Israel cannot be totally eliminated and we'll have to do it again."

Yes, Garrels really covered the breadth of Israeli opinion in the piece that she opened by claiming, "The one thing Israelis agree on is that Israel showed, after what many consider a humiliating defeat in Lebanon two years ago, it can respond forcefully." I guess Amira Haas and Uri Avnery and Btselm workers don't fall qualify as Israeli analysts, but the following do:

• Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (a pro-expansionist Zionist institute)
• Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior researcher with the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies (a completely pro-expansionist, Zionist institute)
• Avi Issacharoff, Arab affairs correspondent for Haaretz (the only non-extreme partisan of the three - but no critic of Israel)

I hope Anne doesn't feel too bad for wielding the old, bloody hedge-trimmer for Israel, she's in good company with a couple of other brush clearers - Ronny and W.

And Speaking for the IDF

I noticed Left I on the News had a telling post about how, in spite of the Israeli Defense Forces rationales for attacking civilians being given huge amounts of press time, the corporate press will actually repeat these rationales even when IDF spokespersons aren't present. Left I writes, "No need for the Israelis to make excuses; the press will do it for them! Unbelievable."

The same could be said for Inskeep this morning as he talks to Eric Westervelt in Gaza this morning. I have to say that Westervelt has seemed to try and maintain a sense of humanity in his reporting on this crime against Palestinians. I recall that in his first story after the initial surprise air attack by the Israelis, he sounded shaken by the extent of the killing. One can also read the transcript of his decent January 11th report on the Israeli targeting of a building filled with civilians and the IDF's refusal to provide or allow medical assistance to the wounded.

So this morning after Israel's blockade of journalists from Gaza, Westervelt is in to survey the damage. Westervelt is noting the massive extent of the damage he sees and Inskeep jumps in to say:

"I wonder now that you are on the scene of some of these explosions; you talk about destroyed living rooms - of course we've heard about destroyed schools - Israel has said that anytime it was striking targets like that it was firing at Hamas rocket launchers nearby, or fighters of one kind or another..."

Pretty incredible really. No acknowledgement that the wanton slaughter and devastation was intentional (at least according to the IDF plans laid out in October of last year), and that the goal of the Gaza Massacre had little to do with the rockets of Hamas, but as John Mearsheimer points out was "...part of a broader strategic goal: the creation of a 'Greater Israel.' Specifically, Israel’s leaders remain determined to control all of what used to be known as Mandate Palestine, which includes Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians would have limited autonomy in a handful of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves, one of which is Gaza. Israel would control the borders around them, movement between them, the air above and the water below them."

Interesting that these rather obvious stated and implied goals are never mentioned on NPR, but the ridiculous claims and excuses of the IDF (and the US government) are repeated and repeated and repeated.

Plungers and Breakers

Just had to note that NPR on Wednesday felt the need to immediately publicize the fact that Joe the Plunger (no toilet too nasty or clogged) is joining the society of no-nothing journalists (maybe there's some sympathy at NPR for such?) by heading off to Israel.

Also, this morning I had to post a comment on NPR's web site about the US being a peace broker in the Israel Palestine conflict. Ari Shapiro is interviewing Aaron Miller - yet again (see here and here). Is there a rational, thinking human in the world who actually thinks the US is some kind of fair broker between Israel and the Palestinians?

Accomplices

(source of original image)

Friday Morning two busy little spin bodies (h/t to War on War Off ) were busy on NPR:

• Steve Inskeep: "And here's what raises the question of how Israel intends to finish the operation. The bombing was intended to stop Palestinian rocket fire into Israel and despite hundreds of bombing runs those rockets are still arriving."

• Mike Shuster: "First Israel hit military targets - buildings tunnels and bases used by the security forces of Hamas..."

If a war crimes trial is ever held for the Israeli leadership that launched this "operation" on "military targets" I hope they save two seats in the docket for Shuster and Inskeep.

Targets and Goals

(click on image for source)

On Wednesday morning Steve Inskeep displayed the extent of his woeful ignorance (or stupidity). He was interviewing Mustafa Barghouti, an independent lawmaker in the West Bank city of Ramallah and asked the following question:

"There was a ceasefire in Gaza for months. It expired, as you know, and then Hamas began firing rockets into Israel knowing there might be a harsh Israeli response. Why did Hamas do that?"

One has to love Mr. Barghouti's reply:

"No sir, I think what you have described is the Israeli narrative and it's not correct..."

Barghouti then patiently explained how throughout the ceasefire Israel tightened its total blockade and committed a violent and flagrant violation of the ceasefire toward the end.

Unfortunately, nothing seems to penetrate the pro-IDF bubble in which Inskeep operates. During a discussion with Mike Shuster this morning he says,

"As they begin to run out of new targets to hit...are the Israelis any closer to their goal which is to stop rocket fire from coming out of Gaza into Israel?"

You could spend a lot of time unpacking such a statement. Who says the goal of the Israelis is to stop rocket fire coming out of Gaza? What rockets were driving Israel's ghettoization and utter destruction of a Gaza when rockets weren't being fired?

And targets? Since when do mosques, police stations, homes, and thousands of wounded and killed civilians count as "targets"? The whole of Schuster and Inskeep's talk is riddled with the use of the "target" euphemism and claims based solely on Israeli Defense Forces statements:

• Inkseep: "Israeli jets struck multiple targets including the Palestinian Parliament building in Gaza City. Israeli naval forces also fired at targets inside the territory."
• Shuster: "Israeli airstrikes on tunnels...where Israel says Hamas has been smuggling in weapons....the Israelis targeted what they called a weapons manufacturing and storage facility in central Gaza. The Israeli navy has gotten into the operation with ships off the coast hitting Hamas coastal outposts and rocket launching spots according to the Israeli Defense Force....500 sorties by warplanes against targets in Gaza...hundreds more carried out by helicopter...looks like Israel is beginning to run out of new targets to hit."

Shuster and Inskeep aren't the only ones at NPR using the vague "target" language. I hear about "Hamas targets" almost anytime I catch one of NPR's hourly updates. Why not just state the fact that the whole of Gaza is being targeted by both bombardment and the blockade of basic necessities such as food, fuel and medicine?

Bobmark Regevsiegel Speaks

First, a few positives: NPR actually allowed some Gaza residents to speak about life under Israeli bombardment (NPR's contracted news producer and a Gaza professor) and interviewed a UNRWA spokesperson about humanitarian conditions.

But sadly NPR's previous suppressed and distorted coverage of Gaza allows a massive amount of disinformation to continue unchallenged. A case in point was One-Approach-Bob Siegel's sympathetic interview with Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev (not the first time he's been coddled on NPR).

Here are a few of Regev's claims that faced no scrutiny whatsoever - so I've included a few basic informational follow-ups that any half-informed reporter could have asked:

• "Our operation is ultimately defensive..." (How does bombing mosques, a university, a police graduation ceremony constitute defense?)
• "300,000 - 400,000 people have been living under the gun of Hamas." (A polite question about how the 1.5 million Gazans have fared under Israeli guns might have been helpful...)
• "When Hamas tore up the ceasefire last week and escalated the crisis we were forced to respond but our operation is defensive." (But what about Israel's November 5th violation of the ceasefire - and the fact that Israel never eased its blockade as required under the ceasefire?)
• "We want to teach Hamas a lesson." (Are you aware that bombing densely populated civilian centers to "teach a lesson" is clearly a war crime?)
• "We make a clear distinction between Hamas and the civilian population of Gaza." (But the siege and blockade of Gaza demonstrates that you make no distinction between civilians and Hamas.)
• I don't think anyone understands why Hamas torpedoed the calm and Hamas escalated the violence bringing about this crisis. (Actually Daniel Levy a former assistant to Ehud Barak has a lot to say about why Hamas is doing what it's doing, and - closer to home - expert Helena Cobban offers rather obvious explanations for Hamas' actions, without condoning them.

I realize it's a tall order asking NPR news readers to know more than the White House and State Department press releases, but - for God's sake - it's not that hard to find the history and context of the violence in Gaza - violence which everyone else in the world knows is fully backed, funded and enabled by the US government.

Real Achievements

Peter Kenyon was talking about PA head Abu Mazen's rather stunning assertion that Hamas is to blame for Israel's latest Gaza slaughter. Kenyon offered this little plum:

"Abbas has always been a pragmatic politician, more interested in securing real achievements for his people than in being their hero."

No qualifications offered, no facts or evidence put forth to buttress such a glowing statement, and no indication that many people might just consider Abbas a hapless pawn of the US and Israel at best and a stooge and craven puppet at worst.

But Some Are More Equal Than Others

NPR continues to suppress news of the ongoing war crime being committed by the Israeli government against the civilian population of Gaza. On Saturday Juan Cole, noting the Independent's article "Chronic malnutrition in Gaza blamed on Israel," sarcastically asks, "Oops, you mean it is not a headline in the U.S.? How odd? Why is that?" Maybe NPR fears ruffling Israeli government feathers, and they can always claim that they just couldn't get any reporters into Gaza anyway, how convenient.

Honestly, can you imagine the wall-to-wall coverage NPR would be giving to a US ally suffering a food and fuel blockade? I guess all civilians are not equal - some are more equal than others.