By Alison Weir* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Recent exposés revealing that Ethan Bronner, the New York Times Israel-Palestine bureau chief, has a son in the Israeli military have caused a storm of controversy that continues to swirl and generate further revelations.

Many people find such a sign of family partisanship in an editor covering a foreign conflict troubling – especially given the Times' record of Israel-centric journalism.

Times management at first refused to confirm Bronner's situation, then refused to comment on it. Finally, public outcry forced Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt to confront the problem in a February 7th column.

After bending over backwards to praise the institution that employs him, Hoyt ultimately opined that Bronner should be re-assigned to a different sphere of reporting to avoid the "appearance" of bias. Times Editor Bill Keller declined to do so, however, instead writing a column calling Bronner's connections to Israel valuable because they "supply a measure of sophistication about Israel and its adversaries that someone with no connections would lack."

If such "sophistication" is valuable, the Times' espoused commitment to the "impartiality and neutrality of the company's newsrooms" would seem to require it to have a balancing editor equally sophisticated about Palestine and its adversary, but Keller did not address that.

Bronner is far from alone

As it turns out, Bronner's ties to the Israeli military are not the rarity one might expect.

• A previous Times bureau chief, Joel Greenberg, before he was bureau chief but after he was already publishing in the Times from Israel, actually served in the Israeli army.
• Media pundit and Atlantic staffer Jeffrey Goldberg also served in the Israeli military; it's unclear when, how, or even if his military service ended.
• Richard Chesnoff, who has been covering Mideast events for more than 40 years, had a son serving in the Israeli military while Chesnoff covered Israel as US News & World Report's senior foreign correspondent.
• NPR's Linda Gradstein's husband was an Israeli sniper and may still be in the Israeli reserves. NPR refuses to disclose whether Gradstein herself is also an Israeli citizen, as are her children and husband.
• Mitch Weinstock, national editor for the San Diego Union-Tribune, served in the Israeli military.
• The New York Times' other correspondent from the region, Isabel Kershner, is an Israeli citizen. Israel has universal compulsory military service, which suggests that Kershner herself and/or family members may have military connections. The Times refuses to answer questions about whether she and/or family members have served or are currently serving in the Israeli military. Is it possible that Times Foreign Editor Susan Chira herself has such connections? The Times refuses to answer.
• Many Associated Press writers and editors are Israeli citizens or have Israeli families. AP will not reveal how many of the journalists in its control bureau for the region currently serve in the Israeli military, how many have served in the past, and how many have family members with this connection.
• Similarly, many TV correspondents such as Martin Fletcher have been Israeli citizens and/or have Israeli families. Do they have family connections to the Israeli military?
• Time Magazine's bureau chief several years ago became an Israeli citizen after he had assumed his post. Does he have relatives in the military?
• CNN's Wolf Blitzer, while not an Israeli citizen, was based in Israel for many years, wrote a book whitewashing Israeli spying on the US, and used to work for the Israel lobby in the US. None of this is divulged to CNN viewers.
• Tikkun's editor Michael Lerner has a son who served in the Israeli military. While Lerner has been a strong critic of many Israeli policies, in an interview with Jewish Week, Lerner explains:

"Having a son in the Israeli army was a manifestation of my love for Israel, and I assume that having a son in the Israeli army is a manifestation of Bronner's love of Israel."

Lerner goes on to make a fundamental point:

"...there is a difference in my emotional and spiritual connection to these two sides [Israelis and Palestinians]. On the one side is my family; on the other side are decent human beings. I want to support human beings all over the planet but I have a special connection to my family. I don't deny it."

For a great many of the reporters and editors determining what Americans learn about Israel-Palestine, Israel is family.

Jonathan Cook, a British journalist based in Nazareth, writes of a recent meeting with a Jerusalem based bureau chief, who explained: "... Bronner's situation is 'the rule, not the exception. I can think of a dozen foreign bureau chiefs, responsible for covering both Israel and the Palestinians, who have served in the Israeli army, and another dozen who like Bronner have kids in the Israeli army."

Cook writes that the bureau chief explained: "It is common to hear Western reporters boasting to one another about their Zionist credentials, their service in the Israeli army or the loyal service of their children."

Apparently, intimate ties to Israel are among the many open secrets in the region that are hidden from the American public. If, as the news media insist, these ties present no problem or even, as the Times' Keller insists, enhance the journalists' work, why do the news agencies consistently refuse to admit them?

The reason for media obfuscation

The answer is not complicated.

While Israel may be family for these journalists and editors, for the vast majority of Americans, Israel is a foreign country. In survey after survey, Americans say they don't wish to "take sides" on this conflict. In other words, the American public wants full, unfiltered, unslanted coverage.

Quite likely the news media refuse to answer questions about their journalists' affiliations because they suspect, accurately, that the public would be displeased to learn that the reporters and editors charged with supplying news on a foreign nation and conflict are, in fact, partisans.

While Keller claims that the New York Times is covering this conflict "even-handedly," studies indicate otherwise:

• The Times covers international reports documenting Israeli human rights abuses at a rate 19 times lower than it reports on the far smaller number of international reports documenting Palestinian human rights abuses.
• The Times covers Israeli children's deaths at rates seven times greater than they cover Palestinian children's deaths, even though there are vastly more of the latter and they occurred first.
• The Times fails to inform its readers that Israel's Jewish-only colonies on confiscated Palestinian Christian and Muslim land are illegal; that its collective punishment of 1.5 million men, women, and children in Gaza is not only cruel and ruthless, it is also illegal; and that its use of American weaponry is routinely in violation of American laws.
• The Times covers the one Israeli (a soldier) held by Palestinians at a rate incalculably higher than it reports on the Palestinian men, women, and children – the vast majority civilians – imprisoned by Israel (currently over 7,000).
• The Times neglects to report that hundreds of Israel's captives have never even been charged with a crime and that those who have were tried in Israeli military courts under an array of bizarre military statutes that make even the planting of onions without a permit a criminal offense – a legal system, if one can call it that, that changes at the whim of the current military governor ruling over a subject population; a system in which parents are without power to protect their children.
• The Times fails to inform its readers that 40 percent of Palestinian males have been imprisoned by Israel, a statistic that normally would be considered highly newsworthy, but that Bronner, Kershner, and Chira apparently feel is unimportant to report.

Americans, whose elected representatives give Israel uniquely gargantuan sums of our tax money (a situation also not covered by the media), want and need all the facts, not just those that Israel's family members decree reportable.

We're not getting them.

* Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew. Photos and videos referenced in the article can be viewed on the website (http://ifamericansknew.org) She can be reached at contact@ifamericansknew.org

Related posts:

• Israeli Knesset extends law banning Israeli-Palestinian family unification
• Even Israeli editorial admits what US media is deaf/blind to
• Mohamed Khodr – America’s Media? A Colonial Force for Israel’s Infallibility

Ethan Bronner and Susan Chira

Ethan Bronner's Conflict With Impartiality

Ethan Bronner is the New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief. As such, he is the editor responsible for all the news coming out of Iasrael-Palestine. Iact is his job to decide what gets reported and what doesn't; what goes in a story and what gets cut.

To a considerable degree, he determines what readers of arguably the nation's most influential newspaper learn about Israel and its adversaries, and, especially, what they don't.

His son just joined the Israeli army.

According to New York Times ethics guidelines, such a situation would be expected to cause significant concern. In these guidelines the Times repeatedly emphasizes the importance of impartiality.

This is considered so critical that the Times devotes considerable attention to "conflict of interest" (also called "conflict with impartiality") problems, situations in which personal interest might cause a journalist to intentionally or unconsciously slant a story.

The Times notes that family affiliations may cause such a conflict; as an example, it explains that a daughter's high position on Wall Street could be problematic for a business reporter.

In situations where such a familial affiliation is considered significant, the journalist may be moved to a different area of reporting.

Ethan Bronner's situation, therefore would appear to be sticky, at the very least. It is difficult to imagine that a son fighting for the foreign nation an editor is charged with covering does not constitute such a potential conflict with impartiality. Apart from Mr. Bronner signing up with the Israeli military himself, it is difficult to imagine a clearer example of familial partisanship.

Yet, to date, Bronner and the Times have refused to address his situation. Foreign Editor Susan Chira (who may also have family allegiances to Israel) has declined to comment, other than refer people to her curt response to Electronic Intifada, which had asked her whether it was true that Bronner's son was in the Israeli military:

"Ethan Bronner referred your query to me, the foreign editor. Here is my comment: Mr. Bronner's son is a young adult who makes his own decisions. At The Times, we have found Mr. Bronner's coverage to be scrupulously fair and we are confident that will continue to be the case."

If that were, indeed, the case for Bronner's reporting, there would undoubtedly be less concern from outside observers. There are numerous instances of accurate reporting by both Israeli and Palestinian journalists; familial and personal affiliation do not necessarily or always result in flawed journalism.

However, while both Chira and Bronner may believe he has been "scrupulously fair" in the years that he has been the paper's top editor on Israel-Palestine (before assuming his current position as Jerusalem bureau chief in March 2008, he had been deputy foreign editor overseeing the region for four years), a number of studies and analyses contradict this contention.

- In 2005 a study by If Americans Knew found that the Times had covered Israeli children's deaths at a rate over seven times greater than it had reported on Palestinian children's deaths – even though Palestinian children's deaths had occurred first, in far greater numbers, and there was considerable evidence that Palestinian young people were being killed intentionally by official Israeli forces.

- Princeton Professor Emeritus Richard Falk and media critic Howard Friel undertook a meticulous analysis of the Times' coverage of the issue; the title of their book indicates their findings: "Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East." Among others things, Falk and Friel discovered that the Times had failed to report the essential fact that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.

- A 2006 study published in the Electronic Intifada revealed that during the previous six years there had been 80 reports by respected international organizations detailing human rights violations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of these, 76 had been primarily critical of Israel, and four had been primarily critical of Palestinians. The study found that the Times had reported on two of the reports for each, giving readers an exceedingly distorted view of the real situation.

- In a recent announcement expressing concern at Bronner's apparent conflict of interest, media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) stated that "Bronner's reporting has been repeatedly criticized by FAIR for what would appear to be a bias toward the Israeli government," detailing specific examples.

Shifting the Blame

Several years ago the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin published an article exploring Jewish student journalists' views on how to report on Israel-Palestine. Several said that they would find it difficult to report negative aspects about Israel, one interviewee saying that he would try to avoid printing such news. If that proved impossible, he said, he would then try to find a way "to shift the blame."

New York Times' news coverage often seems to follow this pattern. When the Gaza massacre of December-January is reported, Gazan rockets are inevitably mentioned. However, the fact that these largely home-made projectiles have killed far fewer Israelis in the eight years they have been used (under 20) than Israeli forces killed in a few minutes during the invasion is virtually always omitted. Likewise left out is the fact that their use began only after Israeli forces had invaded Gaza on a number of occasions, killing and injuring numerous civilians.

The Times consistently reports Israeli actions as retaliatory, despite the fact that, according to an MIT study, in at least 96 percent of ceasefires and periods of calm it was Israeli forces that had first resumed violence. In the conflict that began in fall of 2000, Israeli forces killed over 140 Palestinians before a single Israeli in Israel was killed, 91 Palestinian children (major cause of death, gunfire to the head) before a single Israeli child was killed.

An example of Bronner's Israel-centric reporting is a November, 2009 report on prisoners. Bronner notes that the Israeli soldier captured by Palestinians (the only Israeli prisoner held by Palestinians) is "bespectacled and boyish-seeming," while failing to mention that many of the over 7,000 Palestinians prisoners held by Israel are equally bespectacled and boyish-seeming – in fact, 300+ are not just boyish, they are children.

While Bronner includes personal information about the Israeli prisoner, he includes very few facts about Palestinian prisoners; for example, that hundreds have never been charged with a crime and that those whom Israel has found "guilty" were tried in military courts under military law in a military occupation of Palestinian land that much of the world deems illegal. While Bronner's story contains considerable mention of "terrorism," it fails to report that Israeli forces killed over a thousand Gazan civilians; Palestinians killed one Israeli civilian.

Interestingly, connections to the Israeli military may not be rare for journalists covering the Middle East for US media.

From left, Linda Gradstein, Jeffrey Goldberg and Isabel Kershner

The husband of NPR's longtime correspondent for the region, Linda Gradstein, was a sniper in the Israeli army (and may still be a reserve officer). "Pundit" Jeffrey Goldberg, who appears throughout the media, immigrated to Israel, became an Israeli citizen, and served in the Israeli military. (It is unknown whether he is still in the Israeli reserves; it is possible he received a dispensation from this requirement.)

The New York Times' other major correspondent from the region, Isabel Kershner, is an Israeli citizen. While there is universal compulsory military service in Israel, we have been unable to confirm that Kershner herself and/or her family members have been or are in the Israeli military.

Breaking the silence

Recently, the Israeli organization "Breaking the Silence" published 96 testimonies by female Israeli soldiers. They describe a pervasive pattern of violence, harassment, theft, and humiliation practiced by Israeli forces against Palestinian men, women, and children. Below are excerpts:

"We caught a five-year-old... the officers just picked him up, slapped him around and put him in the jeep. The kid was crying and the officer next to me said 'don't cry' and started laughing at him. Finally the kid cracked a smile – and suddenly the officer gave him a punch in the stomach. Why? 'Don't laugh in my face' he said."

"...it's boring, so we'd create some action. We'd get on the radio, and say they threw stones at us, then someone would be arrested... There was a policewoman, she was bored, so okay, she said they threw stones at her. They asked her who threw them. 'I don't know, two in grey shirts, I didn't manage to see them.' They catch two guys with grey shirts... beat them. Is it them? 'No, I don't think so.' Okay, a whole incident, people get beaten up. Nothing happened that day."

"...two of our soldiers put him [a Palestinian child] in a jeep, and two weeks later the kid was walking around with casts on both arms and legs...they talked about it in the unit quite a lot - about how they sat him down and put his hand on the chair and simply broke it right there on the chair."

An officer described soldiers shooting to death a nine-year-old as he was trying to run away: "They shot in the air, as they say – shot in the air in the lungs..."

In their testimonies, these soldiers emphasize that mistreatment of Palestinian civilians is widespread, routine, and known to everyone. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian press have published excerpts.

Yet, New York Times Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner has so far failed to report this information about Israeli forces.

And his son has just joined up.

* Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew and a board member of the Council for the National Interest (CNI). For more information on Ethan Bronner and his upcoming speaking tour on college campuses, join IAK'S email list. Alison can be reached at contact@ifamericansknew.org

Sources:

The New York Times Company Policy on Ethics in Journalism. This also states: "Companywide, our goal is to cover the news impartially... and to be seen as doing so. The reputation of our company rests upon that perception..."

"Susan Chira, New York Times Foreign Editor, confirms, excuses Bronner's conflict of interest," Israel-Palestine: The Missing Headlines," Jan. 27, 2010

"New York Times fails to disclose Jerusalem bureau chief's conflict of interest
Report," The Electronic Intifada, January 25, 2010

"New York Times' Ethan Bronner's Conflict of Interest: Conversation with Bronner and Alternative News Sources" AlisonWeir.org, January 26, 2010

"Off the Charts: Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine – The New York Times," If Americans Knew, 2005

"Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East," Richard Falk, Howard Friel; ZNET Interview, May 31, 2007

"The New York Times Marginalizes Palestinian Women and Palestinian Rights," Electronic Intifada, Nov. 17, 2006

"Does NYT's Top Israel Reporter Have a Son in the IDF?" FAIR, January 27, 2010

"Killing Palestinians doesn't count: Is a ceasefire breached only when an Israeli is killed?" CounterPunch, January 29, 2009

"Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?" Huffington Post, January 6, 2009

Remember These Children

B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

"The Coverage--and Non-Coverage--of Israel-Palestine," The Link, July-August 2005, Vol 38, Issue 3

"Jewish journalists grapple with 'doing the write thing'" Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, Nov. 23, 2001

"Prisoner Swap Appears Near in the Mideast," Ethan Bronner, New York times, Nov. 23, 2009

"Political prisoners in Israel-Palestine," If Americans Knew

Addameer Prisoners' Support and Human Rights Association

"Israel, Hamas in mutual gestures on prisoners," Reuters, Sept. 30, 2009.

"Female soldiers break their silence," YNET, Jan. 20, 2010 (According to its website, "Ynetnews is part of the prominent Yedioth Media Group, which publishes Yedioth Ahronoth – Israel's most widely-read daily newspaper)

"Testimonies of Israeli Female Soldiers Regarding Violations Against Palestinian Civilians," International Middle East Media Center, January 30, 2010

"BREAKING THE SILENCE: Women Soldiers' Testimonies," 136-page booklet by the Israeli Breaking the Silence organization

* Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew. Photos and videos referenced in the article can be viewed on the website (http://ifamericansknew.org) She can be reached at contact@ifamericansknew.org

Related posts:

• Mohamed Khodr – America’s Media? A Colonial Force for Israel’s Infallibility
• Pro-Israeli Editors Seek to Influence Al-Jazeera International English Satellite TV
• JORDAN: Editors given two-month jail sentences for publishing Prophet cartoons

Illustration By Carlos Latuff

By Mohamed Khodr *

Zimbabwe expels U.N. rights investigator (Washington Post, October 29, 2009)

Zimbabwe Deports U.N. Investigator (New York Times, October 29, 2009)

Zimbabwe Deports U.N. Investigator (Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2009)

BUT: This headline is Absent.

Israel denied entry to Richard Falk, UN Human Rights special rapporteur and deported him from Ben Gurion (December 15, 2008)

What's the difference between the first three headlines and the last one?

Simple, the first three headlines that appear in the three Jewish papers don't deal with Israel (Rupert Murdoch now owns the Wall Street Journal, a staunch Zionist nevertheless), the second headline does, so its persona non grata in “Their/our” media, although both stories deal with the similar expulsion of two U.N. Representatives from Zimbabwe and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

U.N. Representatives Manfred Nowak and Richard Falk were to investigate human rights abuses and criminal acts in Zimbabwe and the Occupied Palestinian Territories respectively, but both were expelled, and both called upon the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate this diplomatic outrage.

It is axiomatic that "their/our" news media protects Israel from any negative stories that may expose its war crimes; crimes against humanity, its three-year siege of 1.5 million Palestinians denied access to food, water and medicines, its imprisonment and torture of women and children as well as one third of the Palestinian elected representatives. It publicly states with all the chutzpah it only possesses that it does not want peace and let the world go to hell. And guess what, the world salutes, obeys, and moves on to the main story in “Their/our” media: The balloon boy that turned out to be a hoax, much like all the stories initiated by Israel and its lobby against Islam, Muslims, Arab countries and its soon-to-be-attacked Iran.

Shockingly, the world just accepts as de facto Israel's repeated public statements that it will attack Iran, damn the consequences to America and the world. There is no world outrage that this violates the U.N. Charter and International Law, i.e. to attack an innocent sovereign nation on the premise of “what if”, much like Bush/Cheney with Iraq. IAEA, U.S. Intelligence evidence be damned.

The only question the world asks is not if Israel will attack Iran but when, never as to how is this possible. If this is the case, then Iran has the right to preemptively attack Israel with or without nuclear weapons and let the chips fall where they may.

“Their/our” media is the true Apartheid Wall between Israel and our nation. It strangles our capitol like an elastic beltway that it tightens and loosens according to Israel's directions.

It is the whip that keeps our cowardly politicians in tow and our populace ignorant of the truth about Israel “our ally and only democratic government in the Middle East”. Israel is the huge sucking sound that drains our money, military, and mind set while we like indoctrinated puppets cheer it on. We are helping Israel in its strategy to create our own national suicide.

Just recent examples of the Jewish media's blanket love fest for Israel at the expense of our own national interest:

1. Not reporting on the Goldstone Report condemning Israel for its war crimes, criminal acts, and siege of Gaza, nor on Obama's AIPAC directed rejection of it.

2. Failure by our networks to report on Israel's newest Jewish spy who sold sensitive national secrets to Israel. (Only Wolf Blitzer, a former AIPAC employee reported the story briefly, simply to state that Israel is not implicated in any wrongdoing; a way to prepare returning to AIPAC after you've left CNN).

3. Not reporting on the embarrassing slap to Obama on its continued building of illegal settlements, demolition of homes in Jerusalem, and its military/police attack on Islam's third holiest site, Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

4. Not reporting on Amnesty International's Report that Israel is controlling and depriving Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza of water to drink. It reports that the illegal settlers use more than four times the water allocated to the Palestinians. The settlers use that much to fill their swimming pools and water their gardens. This criminal act is deliberately ignored by the west lest it has to issue its usual mild “concern”.

5. Not reporting on the quick AIPAC driven retreat by Obama calling for Israel to freeze all construction of illegal settlements including the outrageous claim of “natural growth”. Obama has now abandoned another of his campaign and policy promises to directly remain involved in the peace process (piece by piece theft of Palestinian land) between the traitor Mahmoud Abbas who should resign if he has any dignity left, or be removed. And Netanyahu, the Nazi from hell.

A USATODAY report states that Obama's top fundraisers have received the plumb jobs of Cabinet, Agency, and Ambassadorial appointments. (Top Obama Fundraisers Get Posts, October 29, 2009).

The story reports: “More than 40% of President Obama's top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds. Twenty of the 47 fundraisers that Obama's campaign identified as collecting more than $500,000 have been named to government positions, the analysis found.”

If you look closely you will find that the vast majority of these donors are Jewish, many from Wall Street, or Pro-Israel activists.

So why is America silent, confused, and supportive of Israel? Why do polls show Americans support Israel? Well, if your only source of information is our Jewish dominated media that inputs Pro-Israel Garbage, you'll get Garbage out; in addition to the fear Americans feel to opposing Israel, knowing the caller has their phone number and address. They don't want to hear a knock on their door, Shalom.

Why is our Congress so slavishly a doormat for Israel's Lobby?

Simple: Jewish money, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Media.

That's why a shot in the arm of billions is going to Israel and Goldman Sachs while America's children are left without the Swine Flu shot.

* Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

Related posts:

• Mohamed Khodr – They Shoot Children from Womb to Cradle to Grave
• Mohamed Khodr – Planet Earth: Israeli Occupied Territory
• Mohamed Khodr – The Hanukkah Massacre in Gaza: The Sacrificial Lamb to Israeli-American-Arab Interests

US Media Misreport Latest Gaza Violence

By Carlos Latuff

Please phone and ask for correction!

[A FLYER about this can be downloaded at: www.IfAmericansKnew.org/download/gazacfv.pdf ]

American media are reporting violence that took place along the Gaza-Israel border on January 27th as, in the words of CNN, "the first incidents of violence since last week's Mideast cease-fire," telling the public that Palestinians broke the ceasefire. [1]

The reality, however, is that Israel had already violated the cease-fire at least 7 times, the Israeli military killing 2 Palestinian civilians and injuring at least 5, at least one of them a child:

* Israeli forces killed a Palestinian farmer in Khuza'a east of Khan Yunis on Jan 18
* Israeli forces killed a Palestinian farmer east of Jabalia on Jan 19
* Israeli naval gunboats shelled the Gaza coast line, causing damage to civilian structures on Jan 21
* Israeli troops shot and injured a child east of Gaza City on Jan 22
* Israeli gunboat fire injured 4-7 Palestinian fishermen on Jan 22
* Israeli shelling set a Palestinian house on fire on Jan 22
* Israeli tanks fired on the border town of Al Faraheen, causing damage to homes and farms on Jan 24

This list does not include two Palestinian children who were killed on January 20th by unexploded ordnance left from Israel's 22-day assault on Gaza.[2] (Additional details about the above cease-fire breaches and citations can be found in the timeline below.)

Media Contacts

Most of the media seem to have reported this wrong. You may check your local newspaper and contact it if it reported the story incorrectly.

Below are some national contacts:

Associated Press

Read the AP article: http://tinyurl.com/dllqd6

Phone: 212-621-1500 (Ask for International Desk or for Corporate Communications)
Fax: 212-621-7523
General Questions and Comments: info@ap.org

The New York Times

Read the NYT article: http://tinyurl.com/ctscwj

Phone: 212-556-1234
Fax: 212-556-3690
Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com
Write to the news editors: news-tips@nytimes.com
Corrections: senioreditor@nytimes.com

Washington Post

Read the Washington Post article: http://tinyurl.com/ddgqs4

Phone: 202-334-6000
Fax: 202-334-5269
Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com
Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com

CNN

Read CNN's article: http://tinyurl.com/cfnjzd

Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1784

NPR

NPR's article: http://tinyurl.com/cquq33

Phone: 202-513-3232
Fax: 202-513-3329
E-mail: Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, Ombudsman - ombudsman@npr.org

McClatchey Newspapers

Read McClatchey's article: http://tinyurl.com/affyp2

Main Phone: 916-321-1855

For more media contacts, go to http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111

Timeline of Cease-fire Breaches & Important Events

Sunday, Jan 18 - After a 22-day assault on Gaza in which over 1,300 Palestinians were killed and approximately 9 Israelis were killed, Israel and Hamas each declared a ceasefire. Within several hours, the first breach took place, when Israel killed a Palestinian civilian:

The UN reports: "One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuza'a east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire." [3]

Monday, Jan 19 - Once again the ceasefire was breached when Israel killed another Palestinian civilian. Palestinian militants did respond, but caused no damage or injuries:

The UN reports: "On 19 January, a Palestinian farmer was killed by Israeli gunfire east of Jabalia. The same day, Palestinian militants fired a number of mortars towards Israel and also shot at Israeli troops still inside the Gaza Strip. No injuries or damage were reported." [4]

Wednesday, Jan 21 - Israeli naval boats fired at the Gaza coastline, causing some damage.

IMEMC reports: "On Wednesday, the boats fired shells at the coast line, causing damage but no injuries." [5]

Thursday, Jan 22 - A Palestinian child was wounded by gunfire from Israeli troops, between 4 and 7 Palestinian civilians (fishermen) were injured when they were fired upon by Israel's navy, and a home was set fire by shells from the Israeli navy:

The UN reports: "Four Palestinians were injured on 22 January by a shell fired from an Israeli gunboat off the Gaza coast. The same day, a house was set on fire by a shell fired from an Israeli gunboat. No injuries were reported. Also on 22 January, IDF troops shot and injured a child east of Gaza City near the border." [6]

IMEMC reports: "On Thursday of last week, Israeli Navy forces opened fire at Palestinian fishermen just off the shore of Gaza City, injuring seven civilians." [7]

Saturday, Jan 24 - Israeli tanks fired on the border town of Al Faraheen, causing damage to homes and farms. Also, Aid agencies call on Israel to finally open all crossings into Gaza:

IMEMC reports: "On Saturday, the Israeli army opened fire at residents homes and farmlands located in Al Faraheen village located in the southern part of the Gaza strip. Local residents said that Israeli tanks stationed at the borders opened fire at their homes and farms; damage was reported but no injuries." [8]

Maan News reports: "A coalition of international aid agencies urged the Israeli government on Saturday to open the Gaza Strip's border to allow vital goods into the territory... The agencies, including Oxfam, Save the Children, and the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO) held a news conference on Saturday at the intensive care unit of Gaza's Ash-Shifa Hospital to point up an ongoing humanitarian crisis stemming from Israel's blockade." [9]

Sunday, Jan 25 - Israeli F-16s flew over Gaza, causing schools, government offices, and banks to close and causing Egypt to rapidly evacuate all of its personnel from the Rafah crossing in fear that an attack was imminent.

Haaretz reports: "On Sunday Israeli F-16s flew over Gaza, terrifying people who thought Israel was launching a new offensive. A number of banks, government offices and schools were closed, occupants running to their homes as the Israeli warplanes flew overhead." [10]

Maan News reports: "Egypt suddenly and rapidly evacuated its personnel from=0 Athe Rafah border crossing with Gaza on Sunday fearing a possible Israeli airstrike on the Palestinian side of the crossing, Egyptian security sources said." [11]

Violence on January 27th

What appears to have happened today is that a remote device was detonated near or under an Israeli patrol near the Kissufim crossing between Gaza and Israel. It is not clear on which side of the border the attack took place. One soldier was killed and three were injured.

(The New York Times is reporting this as "the first serious confrontations between Hamas and Israel since each declared a tentative cease-fire 10 days ago."[12] However, there is no indication that Hamas was responsible for the bomb and seems, despite all the Israeli violations, to be pushing for a cease-fire.)

The Israeli military then opened fire on the Palestinian farmland nearby, killing a civilian: a 27-year-old farmer was killed by tank fire.

Israel also closed the crossings into Gaza, denying the entire population (1.5 million) access to desperately needed shipments of food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid.

An Israeli drone fired a missile into the city of Khan Yunis, injuring a Hamas militant on a motorcycle. There are reports that 2 Palestinian children playing nearby were also injured.

It has also been reported that Israeli soldiers occupied a home near the town of Deir Al Balah.

[A FLYER about this can be downloaded at: www.IfAmericansKnew.org/download/gazacfv.pdf ]

---

1. CNN: http://tinyurl.com/c5kpnf
2. UN OCHA: http://tinyurl.com/cmp3gm (PDF)
3. UN OCHA: http://tinyurl.com/craare (PDF)
4. UN OCHA: http://tinyurl.com/cs2sbj
5. IMEMC: http://imemc.org/article/58644
6. UN OCHA: http://tinyurl.com/cmp3gm (PDF)
7. IMEMC: http://imemc.org/article/58644
8. IMEMC: http://imemc.org/article/58613
9. Maan News: http://tinyurl.com/cbzjhn
10. Haaretz: http://tinyurl.com/amcmr7
11. Maan News: http://tinyurl.com/arxsv4
12. The New York Times: http://tinyurl.com/ctscwj

[Via: www.wrmea.com]

Related posts:

• Gaza in The International Media
• Action Alert – Obama: Cease Fire Now!
• Cease Fire Now!

CNN: Red Cross demands Gaza access, cites 'shocking' discoveries
http://tinyurl.com/a59nan

Telegraph: Gaza medics describe horror of strike which killed 70
http://tinyurl.com/7fdzde

NYT: Gaza Children Found With Mothers' Corpses
http://tinyurl.com/85nvpk

Times: Gaza victims' burns increase concern over phosphorus
http://tinyurl.com/8wscez

Washington Post: An Unnecessary War - By Jimmy Carter
http://tinyurl.com/7cf3lm

NYT: The Dominion of the Dead
http://tinyurl.com/9ttd6q

NYT: What You Don't Know About Gaza
http://tinyurl.com/7gl33u

The Nation: Israel in Gaza: Irrationality
http://tinyurl.com/7zz4vz

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - Strip Maul

Related posts:

• Gaza Holocaust in ‘Free’ Media
• Video: Israeli terrorist attack Press TV
• Video: Anthem for Gaza

The op-eds were by Hamas's Ahmed Yousef, and were attacked by the usual suspects - CAMERA, the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organization of America.
http://tinyurl.com/24hoj8

Related posts:

• The Washington Post Finally gets its AIPAC Spy Story Straight
• LA Times: Why Does The (NY) Times Recognize Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’?
• The New York Times ignores international consensus — again!

1. What 'Israel's right to exist' means to Palestinians
By John V. Whitbeck (Source: The Christian Science Monitor)

"Recognizing Israel" or any other state is a formal legal and diplomatic act by one state with respect to another state. It is inappropriate – indeed, nonsensical – to talk about a political party or movement extending diplomatic recognition to a state. To talk of Hamas "recognizing Israel" is simply to use sloppy, confusing, and deceptive shorthand for the real demand being made of the Palestinians.

"Recognizing Israel's existence" appears on first impression to involve a relatively straightforward acknowledgment of a fact of life. Yet there are serious practical problems with this language. What Israel, within what borders, is involved? Is it the 55 percent of historical Palestine recommended for a Jewish state by the UN General Assembly in 1947? The 78 percent of historical Palestine occupied by the Zionist movement in 1948 and now viewed by most of the world as "Israel" or "Israel proper"? The 100 percent of historical Palestine occupied by Israel since June 1967 and shown as "Israel" (without any "Green Line") on maps in Israeli schoolbooks?

Israel has never defined its own borders, since doing so would necessarily place limits on them. Still, if this were all that was being demanded of Hamas, it might be possible for the ruling political party to acknowledge, as a fact of life, that a state of Israel exists today within some specified borders. Indeed, Hamas leadership has effectively done so in recent weeks.
Read full article...

2. One state solution not abortive and dangerous illusions - Answer to Uri Avnery
By: Ilan Pappe (Source: hagada.org.il)

The facts on the ground are crystal clear: the two states' solution has dismally failed and we have no spare time to waste in a futile anticipation of another illusory round of diplomatic efforts that would lead to nowhere. As Avnery admits, the Israeli peace camp has failed, so far, to persuade the Israeli Jewish society to try the road of peace. A sober and critical assessment of this camp's size and force leads to the inevitable conclusion that it has no chance what so ever against the prevailing trends in the Israeli Jewish society. It is doubtful whether it will even keep its very minimal presence on the ground, and there is a great concern it will disappear all together.

Avnery ignores these facts and alleges that the One State Solution is a dangerous panacea to offer to the critically ill patient. All right, so let us prescribe it gradually, but for God's sake let us remove the patient from the very dangerous medicine we have been forcing down his throat for the last sixty years and which is about to kill him.
Read full article...

3. Polite discussion on Zionism: Is it possible?
By Karin Friedemann (Source: thepeoplesvoice.org)

Progressive Jews want to make the bottom line "Jews are nice people." But that is not the bottom line. As Hillel mentioned, the bottom line is that you don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. What would we expect if our neighbor, with or without warning, bulldozed our house?

First, we would call the police. If the man with the bulldozer failed to stop bulldozing the house, the police officer would have the duty to disable the vehicle and he might even shoot him. I'm talking about American law. The bulldozer man would be stopped. He would be considered a criminal. He would be put on trial. He would go to prison. If he had killed people in the process of bulldozing the house, he might even be executed. The owner of the house that was bulldozed would be entitled to damages plus extra for pain and suffering. The law requires that his property be restored to the original state that it was in. That includes replanting the trees and fixing the pavement around the house.
Read full article...

4. Don't call it discrimination
By Nimer Sultany (Source: commentisfree.guardian)

Imagine the following situation in the United States:

The US amends the constitution to define itself as a "White Evangelical and democratic state" and leaves "equal protection of the laws" outside the constitution; a federal organ called the White Evangelical National Fund promotes settlement and allocation of land for White Evangelicals only; a federal organ called White Evangelical Agency encourages and helps White Evangelicals all over the world to immigrate to the US since it is the Promised Land for Whites; a federally-funded Center for Demography working to increase the birthrates of White Evangelicals to ensure their status as a majority and discusses ways to "persuade" non-white citizens to have less children; a federal Immigration and Absorption Department dedicated exclusively for White Evangelicals; a law prohibiting mixed marriages inside the US between American citizens and non-White-Evangelical foreigners (the Supreme Court upholds the law since Earl Warren is no longer on the bench); an immigration law providing automatic citizenship and financial government benefits for White Evangelicals only; the administration declares most of the private lands as public domain owned collectively by white people, and non-whites are denied any rights in these lands; the president appoints a Chief Evangelical Priest for the US, the administration funds his office as well as dozens of White Evangelical religious schools and institutions, and the Congress starts its session after the elections by reading Biblical verses; the head of the FBI publicly states that non-white citizens are "strategic threat" and "demographic threat" to the White Evangelical character of the country; some members of the Congress publicly and routinely demand the expulsion of the non-white citizens; 65% of the white majority regularly expresses in public opinion polls its demand from the administration to encourage the emigration of non-whites outside the country; and 60 years of constant official state of emergency with Emergency Regulations invoked occasionally to prevent non-white leaders from leaving the country and to close their newspapers and NGOs.
Read full article...

5. Bushra's final exam
By Gideon Levy (Source: Ha'aretz)

The blood also spilled on her grammar workbook, staining it. Her green pen was also covered with blood; it's still there, amid the bloody pages. The grammar book of Bushra Bargis (Al-Wahsh), the study material of a girl who was preparing for the Magen pre-matriculation exam, her last exam. Among the pages of the workbook, which has become a kind of memorial book, the family has inserted the death picture: a twisted smile, eyes half-closed and a small hole in the forehead.

Bushra, 17, was killed by a sniper's bullet aimed at the middle of her forehead as she paced her room, grammar book in hand, memorizing the material for the exam the next day. A direct hit. The lights were on in the room, the shooter must have seen the person at whom he was firing, whose life he was taking with such dreadful ease.

A sniper's amusement? One bullet in a teenager's forehead and two bullets in the door of the refrigerator, which is in the new kitchen off of Bushra's room, a place where the females of the house hid: Ruqiya, her daughter Suqeina, 23, and Suqeina's three-year-old daughter, Dareen. Two women, a teenaged girl and a toddler in the house where the soldiers thought Abd al-Rahman Al-Wahsh, a wanted man and Bushra's brother, was hiding.
[...]
The blood-soaked carpet has been rolled up andtaken up to the roof and laid alongside the satellite dish. The house from which the sniper apparently shot and killed Bushra is visible across the way. A picture of Abdullah, the prisoner, hangs on the wall of the room in which his sister was killed. Her picture will be placed next to his. For now, a very large photo of Bushra, the girl who never made it to her exam on Sunday, rests in its frame.
Read full article...

6. Buying the War on Palestinians: The US Media, The New York Times and Israel
By Patrick O'Connor (Source: The Electronic Intifada)

Bill Moyers' April 25 PBS special Buying the War attempted to hold the mainstream US media accountable for its complicity in selling the war on Iraq to the US public. Moyers documented how the US media, with The New York Times in a leading role, bowed to financial and political pressure, succumbed to an environment of patriotism and fear of terrorism, and uncritically reported false US government claims. Tragically, despite the terrible consequences of 60 years of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people, there is still no significant movement to hold the US mainstream media accountable for a similar, dramatic failure in covering Israel and Palestine, and for its complicity in the US' uncritical support for Israel...

Though Moyers did not, the neo-cons continually drew the link between Iraq and Israel, asserting that "the road to Jerusalem passes through Baghdad." And in Israel, the other major outpost in "the war on terror," racist ideology and politically tainted intelligence are also pushed by the government and credulously reported by US media outlets like The New York Times. For example, an 11 April 2007 Times news article by Isabel Kershner headlined unverifiable claims by Israel's Shin Bet (the equivalent of our FBI) that it had thwarted a massive Hamas suicide bombing planned for Passover. The article largely ignored Palestinian denials reported the same day in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. The Shin Bet claim seemed to merit skepticism in light of the Palestinian denials, and Hamas' decision two years ago to halt large-scale attacks.

Of the 1,085 Times news articles since 1 December 2004, 37 percent mentioned Palestinian "attack(s)," 36 percent mentioned "terrorism," 28 percent mentioned "terrorist(s)," 21 percent mentioned Palestinian "violence," 18 percent mentioned "suicide bombing(s)," 16 percent mentioned Palestinian "weapon(s)," and 14 percent mentioned Palestinian "radicals." In contrast to this strong Israeli narrative, only two words reflecting a Palestinian narrative appeared in a comparable percentage of Times' news articles. Israeli "settlement(s)" were noted in 32 percent of articles, and Israeli "occupation" was mentioned in 16 percent of articles. This imbalance is even more striking because the emphasis on Palestinian terrorism and violence corresponded with a two year and five month period during which Israelis killed 965 Palestinians, more than half civilians, while Palestinians killed 85 Israelis. Nonetheless, Israeli "attacks(s)" are mentioned in 13 percent of Times articles, and Israeli "violence" in only 4 percent.

A 22 April 2007 article by Isabel Kershner "Israel and Palestinians Trade Fire in Gaza and West Bank" noted in the opening sentence that: "A sharp escalation of Israeli-Palestinian violence in the West Bank and Gaza left up to six Palestinians dead and culminated in an Israeli airstrike into Gaza." Though six Palestinians were killed inside the West Bank and Gaza, with five deaths definitively attributed to the Israeli military, and no Israeli injuries reported, the article headlined an exchange of fire. Kershner's opening summary sentence did not attribute the "violence" or even escalation to Israel, nor did she use the word "attack" to describe Israeli actions. Even more peculiar, of the article's 851 total words, 524 words were devoted to describing a Palestinian "attack" on a private American School for Palestinians in Gaza during which the "attackers," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic radicals" destroyed school property, but injured no one. Thus Israeli soldiers who killed six Palestinians, didn't "attack" and received less coverage than Palestinian "radicals" and "extremists" who "attacked," though they hurt no one.
Read full article...

[Cartoon Image by Benjamin Heine]

Related posts:

• Weekend Read: Holocaust, AIPAC, Azmi Bishara and Social Injustice
• Weekend read: Israeli Flag, anti-Semitism, citizenship, U.S. bombs, Non-Violent Protest, Prisoners and Cease-fire
• Weekend roundup

The Council for the National Interest Foundation is leading campaign to tell the Bethlehem Story in a Christmas Eve New York Times Ad:

CNI president wrote:

Over the weekend we received nearly one hundred generous donations and much excellent feedback on our Christmas Eve New York Times advertisement titled "Is Bethlehem Dying?" After just three days, we are more than 15% of the way to our goal of raising $30,000 for this advertisement. Thank you so much for your continued support!

We know this is a time of year when many of you are thinking about gifts for family and loved ones, so if you haven't already done so, please consider making a special end-of-the-year donation to support the Council for the National Interest Foundation advertising campaign. Any donations made to the CNI Foundation before Dec. 31st will be tax-deductible, to the full extent of the law, on your 2006 tax returns.

You can make a credit card donation online or by calling us at 202-863-2951. You can also send a check or money order made out to the "CNI Foundation" to the following address:

CNI Foundation
1250 4th Street SW
Suite WG-1
Washington, DC 20024

Thank you for your continued support, and look for our ad in the Sunday, December 24th, "Week in Review" section of the New York Times.

Sincerely,

Gene Bird
President

Lets support this PR activity. Zionist propaganda is not better than us!

Related posts:

• Bethlehem mayor appeals the world not to forget the Birthplace of Jesus Christ
• Palestine: Dying To Live
• Israeli Kids Dying of Hunger and Thirst!?

Bush always claimed that he will refuse any bills amendment (such as this one) which would limit the treatment of detainees in his "war on terror" because he says they are "not needed" and because they don't torture anyone, right?

Then why are Bush and Cheney asking for an exemption for the CIA on the amendment, and for exemptions for non-Americans not held on American soil?

NYTimes: White House Is Seeking Exception in Detainee Abuse Ban. Stepping up a confrontation with the Senate over the handling of detainees, the White House is insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists.

The purpose of the amendment is not to give the Bush "maximum flexibility" for the future, but rather to exempt the CIA so that it can continue to do what it has been doing for some time.

Related posts:

• OPPOSE THE TORTURE OF DETAINEES IN IRAQ
• CFL ALERT: BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO LOBBY AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BAR TORTURE AND INHUMANE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS
• British torture victims challenge Saudi authorities

Received by email (exposeaipac@gmail.com):

We appeal to activists everywhere to hold the media in this country accountable for not reporting what everyone else in the world is reporting. It's a shame that the following story is headline news in all of the Israeli media outlets and that not a single American newspaper finds this news item worthy enough to print. Call the media in your neighborhood both local and national and ask them why they have chosen to sweep this story under the rug. It should be headline news for all Americans that our Congressmen, Senators and Bush cabinet members were at AIPAC's latest convention to show support for the
strong lobby group which focuses exclusively on Israeli concerns. As the meeting was taking place, the government was planning to indict two prominent AIPAC members on charges of espionage. It is of note that AIPAC is paying to defend these two and denies any wrong doing.

Is this not a story worthy of reporting?

Complete media blackout in the U.S. (Sabbah say: the reason is known)

U.S. to indict two senior AIPAC officials under Espionage Act

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/581788.html
By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz Correspondent WASHINGTON - The U.S. Justice Department is expected to file indictments against two former senior staffers at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) - Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman - and, according to sources familiar with the affair, the charges will be subsumed under the Espionage Act.

A Virginia grand jury is now examining the evidence in the case, which involved receipt of classified defense information from Larry Franklin, a Pentagon official, and its transfer to the representative of a foreign country, Naor Gilon, of the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Sources involved in the case confirmed that the Espionage Act is on the agenda. But there is also the possibility that the Justice Department is raising the intention to use that law with the purpose of reaching a plea bargain concerning a lesser offense, albeit one that is still covered by anti-espionage legislation in the U.S.

Presumably, if indeed such an indictment is filed against two former top-level AIPAC staff members, then Gilon's name will come up, even though he is not a suspect. Israeli officials say he was never questioned in the affair. Gilon heads the political department at the embassy.

According to the sources, the grand jury will submit indictments in the coming weeks against Rosen, the former head of foreign policy for the lobbying organization, and against Weissman, who was responsible for the Iranian brief in AIPAC. The grand jury is expected to hand down its indictment against Franklin this week. He is suspected of handing over the classified information. That indictment is expected to be similar to the criminal complaint already filed by the FBI.

The classified material is said to involve information about Iranian intentions to harm American soldiers in Iraq, and it was supposedly given to the two former AIPAC staffers during lunch in Virginia on June 26, 2003.

But suspicions against Rosen and Weissman focus on a meeting a year later, on July 12, 2004. Franklin was cooperating by then with the FBI, which had threatened him with an indictment after tracking his earlier meetings with the AIPAC men, discovering the alleged hand-over of secret information. He agreed to take part in a sting operation in which he would give the two information and the investigators would then follow them.

Franklin called Weissman and asked for a meeting to discuss an important subject. At the meeting, in a mall near the Pentagon, Franklin told Weissman that Iranian agents were trying to capture Israeli civilians working in the Kurdish area in northern Iraq. Around the same time there had been conflicting reports in Washington about an Israeli presence in Kurdish Iraq. Journalist Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker had written that Israelis were operating there, but Israel - and the Americans -denied it.

At the meeting, Franklin told Weissman that the information was classified. This is significant in terms of the investigation, since it prevents the AIPAC men from claiming in their defense that they did not know they were dealing with state secrets.

Weissman left the meeting and went straight to Rosen's AIPAC office at Capitol Hill. He said it was a matter of life or death, and that Israeli lives were in immediate danger. The two made three phone calls: to an administration official, to Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, and to Gilon, at the embassy. Rosen told Gilon about the information and the Israeli official promised he would look into it. All of those calls were wiretapped by the FBI and are part of the case against Rosen and Weissman.

Plato Cacheris, Franklin's lawyer, confirmed to The New York Sun this weekend that his client indeed took part in the sting operation and said that the investigators appealed to Franklin's sense of patriotism to win him over.

The fact that Rosen and Weissman, as American citizens, handed information to an official representative of a foreign power while nowing it was classified is incriminating under the 1917 Espionage Act, which defines as a crime receipt of classified information for the purpose of helping any foreign entity.

The estimated 500 cases involving prosecution of this crime over the last 90 years have always focused on the accused party initiating receipt of the information and on the damage done to the U.S. as a result. In this case, Franklin initiated the transferal of information - and there is no clear-cut evidence regarding the damage done to the U.S.

Rosen, who was under FBI surveillance for at least four years, is now planning his defense with the help of high-profile attorney Abby Lowell. He does not want a plea bargain and prefers to fight it out in court, so he can prove his innocence and go back to work for the lobby.

A decisive factor regarding the future of the case will be the extent of the cooperation between Franklin and the investigators. If Franklin depicts his relationship with Weissman and Rosen as close, and one in which he was asked to provide information, it will help the prosecution. Rosen and Weissman claim that the connection with him was minimal and mostly involved trading professional assessments. (Franklin met with Rosen three times, and more often with Weissman.)

But Franklin is not believed right now to be cooperating fully and he faces two charges: one for handing over the information in 2003, and the other for the illegal possession of 83 classified documents at his home in West Virginia. The maximum punishment for each of the charges is 10 years in prison. If he cooperates with the investigation, the punishment could be significantly reduced.

AIPAC will presumably be discussed in the actual trials. But right now, at least, it does not appear the organization itself will be charged. AIPAC leaders have taken a series of steps to cut themselves off from the two former officials suspected in the case. Sources close to the case say the prosecution posed four conditions to AIPAC, which would guarantee that it would not be involved in the indictments: a change of working methods to ensure that such incidents don't happen
again; the firing of the two officials and public disassociation from them; no offers of high severance or anything else to make it appear the two quit of their own volition; and no financing of their legal defense.

AIPAC has abided by the first three conditions - and the severance pay offered the two was considered very low, considering the many years they worked for the lobby. But it is said to be helping with their legal fees, indirectly, through its own law firm.

AIPAC's decision to cooperate with the investigators' demands and to fire the two officials was made after it became evident that the FBI had tape-recordings showing that Franklin explicitly said that the material was secret. AIPAC's assessment was that it would be difficult for the organization to continue working on Capitol Hill, and with the administration, while two of its senior officials are facing such charges.

Although the inquiry is not focused on AIPAC, it is possible the organization will be dragged into the affair when the trial begins. If the two fired staffers are put in the dock, they will try to prove that they only did what was routine and conventional work for their organization.

Act now by contacting your local media and asking them why they are not reporting this story:

ABC News - 212-456-4040
AP 212-621-1600
CBS News - 212-975-3691
CNN - 404-827-1511
Fox News - 212-301-3300
MSNBC - 201-583-5222
NBC News - 212-664-4971
NPR - 202-414-2200
NY Times - 212-556-1234
PBS - 703-998-2150
USA Today - 703-276-3400
U.S. News - 202-955-2000
WS Journal - 212-416-2000
Wash. Post - 202-334-6000
Time - 212-522-1212

Contact your media via email, for mass email address that you can cut and paste go here:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/MEDIA_EMAIL_ADDRESSES.htm

No related posts.

Following the CNN sample of misleading reporting when it comes to Palestine/Israel conflict, another classic example of how the US media adopts the version of the Israeli Occupation Forces,

Beginning in 2003, If Americans Knew began issuing report cards to media across the country on their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This study of The New York Times covers the first year of the current uprising (September 29, 2000 through September 28, 2001). This period was selected for study because it set the context within which all subsequent reporting on the conflict is viewed. We also studied The Times’ coverage for 2004 to discover whether the patterns we found for the first year had continued, diminished, or increased.

More on this report: Off the Charts: Report on New York Times Israel/Palestine Coverage - If Americans Knew

Related posts:

• The New York Times ignores international consensus — again!
• The American (Zionist) Media and “Relative Calm”
• Arab Bank to shut down New York branch

In an April 24, 2005 column, �The Hottest Button: How the Times Covers Israel/Palestine,� The New York Times' Public Editor Daniel Okrent dismisses the broad international consensus that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. (See below for full article.)

The NYT continues to mislead its readers by not telling them that the world judges Israeli settlements to be a clear violation of international law.

Here is a telling excerpt:

"[The New York Times] does not cede definitive authority to other organizations and sources. Last Tuesday, "Israel, on Its Own, is Shaping the Borders of the West Bank," by Steven Erlanger, angered Michael Brown for its unelaborated statement that Palestinians "argue that all Israeli settlements beyond the green line are illegal." The Times, Brown believes, is obligated to note that "it's not just the Palestinians who say it's illegal, but U.N. Security Council resolutions.

"Ethan Bronner, the paper's deputy foreign editor, counters: 'We view ourselves as neutral and unbound by such judgments. We cite them, but we do not live by them.' He adds, 'In 1975, when the U.N. General Assembly labeled Zionism as racism, would it have been logical for The Times to repeat that description as fact from then on? Obviously not. We take note of official views, but we don't adopt them as our own.'"

Note how both Mr. Okrent and Mr. Bronner fail to understand, or simply sidestep, the basic core of Mr. Brown's complaint: that the Times does NOT take note of official views, especially those of the United Nations. Instead, they conveniently create a straw man -- that Mr. Brown wants them to adopt those views as the Times' -- and then proceed to forcefully dismantle it.

Second, Mr. Okrent omits the reality that, in addition to UN Security Council resolutions, the United States government, the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem have all stated that Israeli settlements in the West Bank - including East Jerusalem - and the Gaza Strip are illegal according to international law (see citations from each below). Their conclusion is firmly rooted in the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits an occupying power from transferring civilians from the occupying power's territory into the occupied territory, and from creating permanent changes in the occupied territory that are not for the benefit of the occupied population.

Michael Brown of Partners for Peace explained in a phone interview that in addition to raising UN Security Council resolutions with Okrent, Okrent failed to mention that Brown also commented in his main report on the Geneva Conventions and international law, and Human Rights Watch and US government positions against the settlements.

Even the Israeli Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are under "belligerent occupation". The logical conclusion of the Israeli Supreme Court's judgment is that Israeli settlements on occupied land violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Okrent quotes Deputy Foreign Editor Ethan Bronner, who casts doubt on the UN's credibility by raising the 1975 UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, which said that Zionism is a form of racism. However, General Assembly resolutions are not binding, and UNGA 3379 was not later affirmed by respected human rights groups worldwide or by the International Court of Justice. In contrast, the 1980 UN Security Council Resolution 465, which condemned Israeli settlements as a violation of international law, was supported by the US, is binding and considered law, and has been echoed by human rights organizations around the world.

By failing to acknowledge the broad international consensus that Israeli settlements violate international law, Okrent de facto supports the NYT's typical, flawed reporting which represents the disagreement over the settlements is simply a "he said, she said" argument between Israelis and Palestinians, devoid of context and with no standards to judge who is right or wrong. In reality, in the case of Israeli settlements, international law and the international community very squarely support the Palestinian position.

Actions:

Write to the NYT at the following addresses:

NYT ombudsman Daniel Okrent -- public@nytimes.com
NYT editor -- letters@nytimes.com
NYT Foreign Desk Editors -- bronnere@nytimes.com, chira@nytimes.com
NYT Reporter Steven Erlanger -- erlanger@nytimes.com

1. Tell The New York Times that they are out of step with the reality that most of the world judges all Israeli settlements as a clear violation of international law.

2. Tell NYT Public Editor Daniel Okrent that he and NYT reporters should note in all NYT articles mentioning Israeli settlements that leading human rights groups, governments, the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council all agree that Israeli settlements in the West Bank - including East Jerusalem - and the Gaza Strip violate international law (see citations from different groups below). Whether the NYT believes it or not, the NYT should cite the international consensus.

3. Tell the New York Times that it is highly disingenuous for Okrent and Bronner to attempt to use the non-binding UN General Assembly resolution 3379 on Zionism to de-legitimize the broad international consensus, firmly rooted in the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Israeli settlements violate international law.

For recommendations on language to use when speaking or writing on Israel/Palestine, please go to: http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/language/

Please do feel free to share with us your letters or a summary of your conversation with The NYTimes at info@pmwatch.org.

You can also call us at: (866) DIAL-PMW

Palestine Media Watch
(866) DIAL-PMW
http://www.pmwatch.org/

NOTES:
Quotations on the Illegality of Israeli Settlements

A. The International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

78. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

120. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
(including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

B. Human Rights Watch, Israel: Bush Should Lay Down the Law on Settlements, April 11, 2005

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/11/isrlpa10462.htm

Israel's policy of encouraging, financing, establishing, and expanding Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories violates two main principles of international humanitarian law, or the laws of war. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a party, states are prohibited from transferring civilians from the occupying power's territory into the occupied territory, and from creating permanent changes in the occupied territory that are not for the benefit of the occupied population.

�Israel is not only violating international law in expanding its settlements, but also its commitments under the �road map� to freeze them,� said Whitson. �Israel must evacuate its settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in order to uphold its responsibilities as an occupying power.�

C. Amnesty International, Israel/Occupied Territories, Removing Unlawful Settlements in the Occupied Territories: Time to Act, March 23, 2005

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150212005?open&of=ENG-ISR

However, the evacuation of some 8,000 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip and from some very sparsely populated settlements in the West Bank must not be allowed to be used by Israel as an opportunity to expand other settlements in the West Bank, where some 400,000 Israelis live in violation of international law.

The international community has long recognized the unlawfulness of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. UN Security Council Resolution 465 (of 1 March 1980) called on Israel "... to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem".

However, the international community failed to take any measure to implement this resolution. Most Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories were built after this resolution was passed, with the greatest expansion having taken place in the past decade. The establishment and expansion of settlements and related infrastructure in the West Bank is continuing on a daily basis, contrary to Israel's commitment under the UN-sponsored 2003 Roadmap peace plan. This week the Israeli government confirmed its plan to built 3,500 new settlement houses in the East Jerusalem area of the West Bank.

As well as violating international humanitarian law per se, the implementation of Israel's settlement policy in the Occupied Territories violates fundamental human rights provisions, including the prohibition of discrimination.

D. B'Tselem, Land Expropriation and Settlements

http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/

Since 1967, Israel has established in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip 152 settlements that have been recognized by the Interior Ministry. In addition, dozens of outposts of varying size have been established. Some of these outposts are settlements for all intents and purposes, but the Interior Ministry has not recognized them as such....
In that the very establishment of the settlements is illegal, and in light of the human rights violations resulting from the existence of the settlements, B�Tselem demands that Israel evacuate the settlements. The action must be done in a way that respects the settlers� human rights, including the payment of compensation.
East Jerusalem, B'Tselem

http://www.btselem.org/english/Jerusalem/Index.asp

East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.
E. The United States Government
�Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.� Mr. Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing -- November 25, 2002
"U.S. Policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process�s Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories.� Secretary of State Cyrus Vance before House Committee on Foreign Affairs -- March 21, 1980
�Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.� William Scranton, US Ambassador to the United Nations, UN Security Council -- March 23, 1976
F. The Israeli Supreme Court, As Cited by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department

http://www.nad-plo.org/inner.php?view=facts_others_f23p

As early as 1979, the Israeli Supreme Court stated: �This is a situation of belligerency and the status of [Israel] with respect to the occupied territory is that of an Occupying Power.� In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court held yet again that the West Bank and Gaza Strip �are subject to a belligerent occupation by the State of Israel.� In June, 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court reaffirmed that �since 1967, Israel has been holding [the West Bank] in belligerent occupation.� [11]

[9] 606 Il. H.C. 78, Ayub, et al. v. Minister of Defense, et al. (The Beth Case); 610 Il. H.C. 78, Matawa et al. v. Minister of Defense, et al. (The Bekaot Case), reprinted in Antoine Bouvier and Marco Sassoli, How Does Law Protect in War? Cases, Documents and Teaching Materials on Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross, pps. 812-817, Geneva, 1999, hereinafter , ICRC 1999.

[10] Adjuri v. IDF Commander, 7015 Il. H.C. 02, 7019 Il. H.C. 02 (2002).

[11] Beit Sourik Village Council v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, 2056 Il. H.C. 04 at 1 (2004).

===========

The Hottest Button: How The Times Covers Israel and Palestine
By DANIEL OKRENT

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/weekinreview/24okrent.html?hp

Published: April 24, 2005

Let me offer two statements about this paper's coverage of the conflict in the Middle East. First: I find the correspondents at The Times to be honest and committed journalists. Second: The Times today is the gold standard as far as setting out in precise language the perspectives of the parties, the contents of resolutions, the terms of international conventions.

Neither of these comments is my own. The first is a direct quotation from Michael F. Brown, executive director of Partners for Peace, an organization that seeks, it says, "to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories." The second comes from Andrea Levin, president and executive director of the Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America, the muscular pro-Zionist media monitor. With partisans on each side offering respectful appraisal in place of vituperation and threat, you would think that we had reached a milestone moment in The Times's coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

You would be wrong. Less temperate groups on each side find The Times guilty of felonies ranging from outright dishonesty to complicity in the deaths of civilians. A group called the Orthodox Caucus has led boycotts of The Times for "simply not telling the truth." I have met with representatives of If Americans Knew, an organization that says The Times conscientiously reports on the deaths of Israeli children but ignores the deaths of Palestinian children - children, they say, usually "shot in the head or chest" by the Israeli soldiers.

On the edges, rage and accusation prevail; nearer the middle, more reasoned critics still find much to criticize. Michael Brown and Andrea Levin can cite chapter, verse, sentence and punctuation mark. They watch this paper with a truly awesome vigilance.

It's this simple: An article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot appear in The Times without eliciting instant and intense response. A photograph of a grieving mother is considered a provocation, an interview with a radical on either side is deemed willful propaganda. Detailed studies of column inches devoted to one or another subject arrive weekly. One reader, Leo Rennert of Bethesda, Md., has written to me 164 times (as of Friday) over the past 17 months to comment on the Middle East coverage. His messages are seldom love letters.

On this issue, love letters are as common as compromise, and The Times's exoneration from charges of bias is as likely as an imminent peace.

After reading thousands of criticisms (as well as insults, accusations and threats) of The Times's Middle East coverage, I'm still waiting for one reader to say the paper has ever been unfair in a way that was damaging to both sides. Given the frequency of articles on the subject, it would be hard to imagine that such a piece has not been published. In fact, I've seen a few myself. But to see them, I have had to suppress my own feelings about what is happening in Israel and Palestine.

I can't say I'm very good at it. How could I be - how could anyone be - when considering a conflict so deep, so unabating, so riddled with pain? Who can be dispassionate about an endless tragedy?

This doesn't exonerate The Times, nor does the fact that criticism comes from each side suggest that the paper's doing something right. But no one who tries to walk down the middle of a road during a firefight could possibly emerge unscathed.

Critics will say The Times attempts nothing of the sort, that it has thrown in its lot with one side in the conflict. But let's keep motive out of this discussion. Neither you nor I know what the motives of the editors might be. Nor should their motives even matter. We can judge them only on what they do.

Some things The Times does and does not do (apart from having extremely opinionated opinion pages, which color the way the rest of the paper is read but are not the issue under discussion today):

It does not provide history lessons. A report on an assassination attempt on a Hamas leader in Gaza that kills nearby innocents will most likely mention the immediate provocation - perhaps a Palestinian attack on an Israeli settlement. But, says the angered reader, what about the murderous assault that provoked the settlement attack? And, says his aggrieved counterpart on the other side, what about the ambush that preceded the assault? And so on back to the first intifada, and then to 1973 and 1967 and 1956 and 1948 - an endless chain of regression and recrimination and pain that cannot be represented in a year, much less in a single dispatch in a single day.

It eschews passion. If your cause needs good publicity - as both the Palestinians and the Israelis definitely do - conventional news story tropes can only be infuriating: bland recitations of presumed facts followed by challenges to those facts, assertions by spokesmen instantly countered by opposing spokesmen. The paper's seeming reluctance, for instance, to report evidence of incitement to racial or religious hatred derives in part, I believe, from a subconscious effort to stick to the noninflammatory middle and to keep things civil, even when civility leaked out of the conflict long ago.

But partisans desire heat. Detachment itself becomes suspect. If you are not with us, you are therefore against us.

It makes selections. For people on either side who see the conflict as a life-and-death issue - as it certainly is - the Middle East is the only story that matters. Each day's reports in The Times are tiny fragments of a tragic epic. Yes, there were demonstrations against settler relocation this morning, but how can you ignore the afternoon's additional construction on the West Bank barrier? Or, I know you gave my version of events yesterday, but why are you presenting only the other side's version today?

This dilemma is aggravated by the way certain events force themselves into the newspaper. Violence trumps virtually everything else. If you are covering a debate and a terror bomb detonates two blocks away, you race to the bombing site. Terrorists have a horrifying way of influencing news coverage, but it works.

It does not cede definitive authority to other organizations and sources. Last Tuesday, "Israel, on Its Own, Is Shaping the Borders of the West Bank," by Steven Erlanger, angered Michael Brown for its unelaborated statement that Palestinians "argue that all Israeli settlements beyond the green line are illegal." The Times, Brown believes, is obligated to note that "it's not just the Palestinians who say it's illegal, but U.N. Security Council resolutions."

Ethan Bronner, the paper's deputy foreign editor, counters:"We view ourselves as neutral and unbound by such judgments. We cite them, but we do not live by them." He adds, "In 1975, when the U.N. General Assembly labeled Zionism as racism, would it have been logical for The Times to repeat that description as fact from then on? Obviously not. We take note of official views, but we don't adopt them as our own."

Nor does the paper accept as authoritative the reporting of others. A common criticism I receive is built around "proof" of something The Times has not itself reported. Frequently such evidence is drawn from openly partisan sources, and when I cite to critics contrary evidence provided by Times reporters, that evidence is in turn dismissed as partisan. The representatives of If Americans Knew earnestly believe that the information they presented to me about the killing of Palestinian children to be "simple objective criteria." But I don't think any of us can be objective about our own claimed objectivity.

It is limited by geography. The Times, like virtually every American news organization, maintains its bureau in West Jerusalem. Its reporters and their families shop in the same markets, walk the same streets and sit in the same cafes that have long been at risk of terrorist attack. Some advocates of the Palestinian cause call this "structural geographic bias."

If the reporters lived in Gaza or Ramallah, this argument goes, they would feel exposed to the daily struggles and dangers of life behind Palestinian lines and would presumably become more empathetic toward the Palestinians.

I don't know about empathy, but I do know that the angle of vision determines what you see. A reporter based in secular, Europeanized Tel Aviv would experience an Israel vastly different from one living in Jerusalem; a reporter with a home in Ramallah would most likely find an entirely different world. The Times ought to give it a try.

It's only a newspaper. It eventually comes to this: Journalism itself is inadequate to tell this story. Like recorded music, which is only a facsimile of music, journalism is a substitute, a stand-in. It's what we call on when we can't know something firsthand. It's not reality, but a version of reality, and both daily deadlines and limited space make even the best journalism a reductionist version of reality.

In preparing to write this article, my conversations with Michael Brown and Andrea Levin, with various other parties of interest and with The Times's editors consumed hours. My e-mail encounters with readers have consumed months. To all who would assert that squeezing what I've drawn from this research into these few paragraphs has stripped the many arguments of their nuance or robbed them of their power, I have no rebuttal. The more important and complicated an issue, or the closer it is to the edge of life and death and the future of nations, the less likely its essences can be distilled by that wholly inadequate but absolutely necessary servant, daily journalism.

�

A postscript:

During my research, representatives of If Americans Knew expressed the belief that unless the paper assigned equal numbers of Muslim and Jewish reporters to cover the conflict, Jewish reporters should be kept off the beat.

I find this profoundly offensive, but not nearly as repellent as a calumny that has popped up in my e-mail with lamentable frequency - the charge that The Times is anti-Semitic. Even if you stipulate that The Times's reporters and editors favor the Palestinian cause (something I am not remotely prepared to do), this is an astonishing debasement. If reporting that is sympathetic to Palestinians, or antipathetic to Israelis, is anti-Semitism, what is real anti-Semitism? What word do you have left for conscious discrimination, or open hatred, or acts of intentional, ethnically motivated violence?

The Times may be - is - imperfect. It is not anti-Semitic. Calling it that defames the accuser far more than it does the accused.

The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.

[source: pmwatch]

Related posts:

• The American (Zionist) Media and “Relative Calm”
• CFL ALERT: Stop expanding West Bank settlements
• Arab Bank to shut down New York branch

What liberal infidels will never understand about the president.
by Rick Perlstein

Here are some things that Christopher Nunneley, a conservative activist in Birmingham, Alabama, believes. That some time in June, apparently unnoticed by the world media, George Bush negotiated an end to the civil war in Sudan. That Bill Clinton is "lazy" and Teresa Heinz Kerry is an "African colonialist." That "we don't do torture," and that the School of the Americas manuals showing we do were "just ancient U.S. disinformation designed to make the Soviets think that we didn't know how to do real interrogations."

Chris Nunneley also believes something crazy: that George W. Bush is a nice guy.

It's a rather different conclusion than many liberals would make. When we think of Bush's character, we're likely to focus on the administration's proposed budget cuts for veterans, the children indefinitely detained at Abu Ghraib, maybe the story of how the young lad Bush loaded up live frogs with firecrackers in order to watch them explode.

Conservatives see it differently.

"He's very compassionate," says Chris, an intelligent man who's open-minded enough to make listening to liberals a sort of hobby. "If you look at the way he's bucked the far right: I mean, $15 billion for AIDS in Africa!" He speaks at the church services of blacks, and "you don't fake that. That's not just a photo op."

Of course, two years after Bush made his pledge, only 2 percent of the AIDS money has been distributed (in any event, it will mainly go to drug companies). And appearing earnest in the presence of African Americans has been a documented Bush strategy for wooing moderate voters since the beginning.

So what does a conservative say when such "nice guy" jazz is challenged? Say, when you ask whether a nice guy would invade a country at the cost of untold innocent lives on the shakiest of pretenses? Or, closer to home, whether he would (as Bush did in late 2000) go on a fishing trip while his daughter was undergoing surgery, and use the world's media to mockingly order her to clean her room while he was away? Doesn't signify with Chris. "If you're in one camp, the idea of being firm, 'tough love,' is very popular. If you're in another, you can say, 'Well, that's just mean!' On my side, well, I like the whole idea of 'tough love.' "

This is a journey among the "tough love" camp. The people who, even in the face of evidence of his casual cruelty, of his habitual and unchristian contempt for weakness, love George Bush unconditionally: love him when he is tender, love him when he is tough?but who never, ever are tough on him.

On July 15, the Bush-Cheney campaign organized 6,925 "Parties for the President" in supporters' homes nationwide. I chose to attend in Portland, Oregon. The right love to believe the whole world is against them. In a county where Ralph Nader got a quarter of the votes of George Bush and Al Gore well over double, the sense of martyrdom is especially fragrant: Portland's conservatives are like others anywhere, only more so. One leader told me that here, it's the conservatives who are oppressed by the gays.

They certainly love them some George Bush.

Twelve people gather on the houseboat of Bruce Broussard, a perennially failed candidate popular among local conservatives for, well, his race: He is African American. First the group hears Laura Bush on a conference call. ("All of us know what makes George a great president. He has the courage of his convictions, the willingness to make the tough decisions and stick with them.") Then, they get a bewilderingly disjointed address from their host (he hits some key points from his recent Senate platform: presidential terms of six years instead of four, a cabinet-level Department of Senior Citizens with himself as secretary). Finally, beef-and-cheese dip loading down a plateful of Mrs. Broussard's homemade tortilla chips, I open the floor to the question of why they personally revere George Bush.

Ponytailed Larry, who wears the stripes of a former marine gunnery sergeant on his floppy hat, bursts into laughter; it's too obvious to take seriously. "Honesty. Truth. Integrity," he says upon recovering. "I don't think there's any difference between the governor of Texas and the president of the United States."

Gingerly, I offer one difference: The governor ran for president on a platform of balanced budgets, then ran the federal budget straight into the red.

Responds Larry (of the first president since James Garfield with a Congress compliant enough never to issue a single veto): "Well, it's interesting that we blame the person who happens to be president for the deficit. As if he has any control over the legislature of the United States."

Larry's wife, Tami Mars, the Republican congressional nominee for Oregon's third district, proposes a Divine Right of Eight-Year Terms: "Let the man finish what he started. Instead of switching out his leadership?because that's what the terrorists are expecting."

Larry is asked what he thinks of Bush's budget cuts for troops in the field. He's not with Bush on everything: "I hope he reverses himself on that."

I note that he already has, due to Democratic pressure.

Faced with an existential impossibility?giving the Democrats credit for anything?he retreats into a retort I'll hear again and again tonight: Nobody's perfect. "I don't think we're going to find a situation in which we find a person with which we're 100 percent comfortable."

Then he reels off a litany of complaints about Bush. "Horrible underemployment situation . . . the big-business aspect of the Republican Party I have some issues with."

The next thing I hear is the last refuge of the cornered conservative: a non sequitur fulmination against the hippie Democrats.

"Having said that, what's your option? To have more bike trails?"

Source: Village Voice

Related posts:

• He Wasn’t Elected…God Put Bush There
• Kerry is a mass-murderer. Bush is psycho. What’s a voter to do?
• Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. Blind, Or A Coward?

Venture to Offer ID Card for Use at Security Checks.

Americans hate to wait. But will they pay - and submit to security screenings and even high-technology fingerprinting - to avoid the long lines snaking behind checkpoints in airports, office buildings and sports arenas?

If businesses, airports and government agencies sign on to the plan and put Verified's card readers at security checkpoints, cardholders would be able to zip through, avoiding the most thorough searches.

Mr. Brill, who created CourtTV and The American Lawyer and Brill's Content magazines, joins a wave of companies hoping to fill a need and make a profit as government agencies and businesses scramble to shore up defenses against terrorism.

The card, he said, could serve as a more palatable alternative to a government-mandated national ID card, which is opposed by privacy advocates and the Bush administration.

Source: The New York Times

Related posts:

• Mobile Phones Becoming Wallets