Kristof Pleads for More Debate Over U.S. Embrace of Israel

[cali]

By E&P Staff

Published: March 17, 2007 10:20 PM ET

NEW YORK Very little criticism of Israel and its policies is commonly voiced on editorial pages and by political figures in the United States, even though America is the prime ally and military supplier of Israel, and what happens in the Middle East impacts us greatly. Nicholas Kristof pointed this out in his Sunday column for The New York Times and called for the kind of brisk debate often heard in -- Israel.

Excerpts from his column, at www.nytimes.com (behind the TimesSelect wall) follow.

*


Democrats are railing at just about everything President Bush does, with one prominent exception: Mr. Bush’s crushing embrace of Israel.

There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians. And that silence harms America, Middle East peace prospects and Israel itself.

Within Israel, you hear vitriolic debates in politics and the news media about the use of force and the occupation of Palestinian territories. Yet no major American candidate is willing today to be half as critical of hard-line Israeli government policies as, say, Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper....

<snip>

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003559613


*Mods, I posted this in GD because it's about U.S. newspapers' editorial policies about Israel and political debate here in the U.S., not I/P. So leave it or move it, as you see fit.

[mediaman007]

1. Maybe Mr. Kristof reads DU...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=269258&mesg_id=269266

[Behind the Aegis]

2. You're kidding, right?

Pat Robertson & A.N.S.W.E.R.

[cali]

3. Huh??

Sorry, I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by that.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. You have been here for awhile.

You really should understand that post. The far-right and far-left have met, but they hate Israel for different reasons. Debate about Israel in this country is pointless. Look around DU. The amount of anti-Israeli bigotry is foul. One can't say all "Southerners are racists" or "all "fly-over" states are pointless and stupid," but, it is OK to say "FUCK Israel!" or "Israel leads the us by the nose (or some such nonsense)."

Seriously, cali, you are one of the FEW neutral parties here, do you honestly think that Israel will ever get a fair shake? If it were not for the intervention of the US, do you think that Israel would even still exist?

[cali]

8. Ok, I see what you're saying.

I've never engaged in or condoned the vitriol that sometimes (too often) gets spewed here at DU regarding Israel- let alone the out and out anti-semitism that sometimes rears its ugly head, but I don't think that the U.S in general, reflects either Pat Robertson or ANSWER. Nor do I think DU reflects the attitudes of the general public. And yes, I do absolutely think that the one sided coverage, and lack of political debate, is harmful to I/P issues. I think Kristof is dead on. The one sided political and editorial support for Israel in this country, helps neither Israelis or Palestinians move toward peace.

So, to answer the questions you posed? Israel gets more than a fair shake in American political and editorial circles, and yes, I think Israel would still exist without U.S. aid and intervention.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. I am glad you see it.

I've never engaged in or condoned the vitriol that sometimes (too often) gets spewed here at DU regarding Israel- let alone the out and out anti-semitism that sometimes rears its ugly head, but I don't think that the U.S in general, reflects either Pat Robertson or ANSWER.

To the first part of your sentence, "yes, I am well aware of that, which is why I said what I did." I also agree with the last part of your sentence. The majority of the US is somewhere in the middle. Like you, I also find the lack of imbalance of I/P issues harmful. However, I am not so ethnocentric (not saying you are) to see that, in the grand sense of reporting, the balance does not favor Israel. It only does so in this country, and in papers with an ultra-right-wing slant. Should a country with a paper that is not "right-wing" publish anything remotely "pro-Israeli," then it will be 'ripped to shreds.'

I am glad you think that Israel would still exist without US aid and intervention. Now, I challenge you to go over the past 40-some-odd years and remove the US aid, protection in the UNSC, and other areas, and answer again.

Israel was born out of anti-Semitism, and she will die the same way!

[H2O Man]

9. Those might be

good starting points. There is a significant amount of hatred for Israel in the US, and the rest of the world. And a significant part of that is due to ignorance, and to hateful people exploiting the ignorance.

There is also hatred for Arab people, in the US and in the rest of the world, that is based in significant part on ignorance.

At this point, it seems that the world is held hostage by the ignorance, the hatred, and the violence. The US is not only investing huge sums of money in the Middle East, but is involved openly in the war in Iraq, and there is tension with Iran. Although I do not like anyone associated with this administration, I do recognize that there is value in Condi Rice's attempts to at least talk with some representatives from Iran.

I assume that the majority of DUers pay taxes, perhaps in a variety of ways, that are being invested in the violence in the Middle East. Frank discussion -- and even heated debate -- about the US policies in the Middle East, including our relationship with Israel, should be encouraged. The point you bring up about many people believing that Israel has too much influence on US policy should be considered an important topic, open to debate, with the recognition that good people can hold very different views -- without any implication that if an individual holds one opinion or another, that they are anti-Muslim or anti-Jew.

[mahmoud al_hazen]

12. There's pretty much a consensus,

and further discussion and going through the motions of diplomacy is purely adhering to an American-devised agenda.

[H2O Man]

13. Of course it is.

It would be impossible to make a case that anything that anyone from the administration does is anything other than -- as you accurately put it -- "purely adhering to an American-devised agenda." And it is a fact that with the Bush-Cheney administration, which has a destructive agenda, there are few opportunities for advancing a non-violent agenda. Yet he who bemoans a lack of opportunity too often misses the fact that small doors often open into large rooms. Discussions between the US and Iran may indeed be considered a small door by consensus, but it is better opened than closed.

[ixion]

4. it would be nice to see real debate about this and so many other topics

that critically need honest debate.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. honest debate?

That won't happen. Not here, in the States, and not anywhere else.

[mahmoud al_hazen]

7. Interesting link, thanks.

Whether there's a Republican or Democratic administration or Congress, most of the world rightfully views the United States with suspicion and contempt, viz it's friend.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Kristof is to be deeply commended for his courage in speaking this long overdue truth--and in the

New York Times, no less. Let's hope his courage is catching.

[papau]

14. Kristof is correct-IMO, more pressure is needed for Taba/Geneva so settlements are

viewed as pointless when constructed outside the areas identified in Geneva as part of the land swap that is needed to preserve near 100% of the green line land area of the future Palestinian state.

But the other point - that saying anything positive about Israel, Israeli people, or in some areas even about local Jews, is not done in the EU because of a basic EU hate/bias from both the left and the right in the EU media, and that positive Israeli coverage is not found in Asia or Africa, but more because of lack of interest - seems to ring true to me.

I can't recall a positive about anything Israeli via major media in Britain, France, Austria, etc. Granted the EU media always claims they are just concerned about the Palestinian situation, and their words are not reflecting EU need for Arab oil, and those words do not reflect 1930 bias continuing - but after a few decades of watching those words, this explanation does not ring true.

Perhaps our EU based members could tell me my random observations over the years do not reflect day to day coverage in their areas today? I hope so.