10/28 Links Pt2: Jonathan Tobin: The painful truth about media bias: Some journalists lie; Mark Regev: Israel, the Suez Crisis and accusations of colonialist collusion

From Ian:

Jonathan Tobin: The painful truth about media bias: Some journalists lie

It also contributes to a situation in which people on both sides of the political aisle ignore arguments from their opponents, and—as another Times article pointed out—leads to Democrats and Republicans thinking that democracy is in peril. They just disagree about who is at fault.

There are lots of reasons for this landscape. But to deny the responsibility of the media, and the way so many journalists lie for partisan reasons, is not only to fly in the face of the facts; it exhibits a failure to understand how and why our politics and our society are so broken.

This atmosphere helps explain, at least in part, the rise of anti-Semitism and how it is being tolerated on both ends of the political spectrum. It reflects an over-the-top partisanship in a society in which few are willing to condemn political allies, even when they are guilty of blatant hate-speech.

The same pattern applies to coverage of Israel and the Middle East. Though ignorance of the history of the region might seem to be at the root of the slant—since many editors and reporters simply don’t know, for instance, that peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs might have been possible had the latter not consistently rejected any and all compromises throughout the century of the conflict—even relatively recent events are often ignored, buttressing a narrative about oppression of the Palestinians.

Furthermore, many reporters, influenced by Palestinian propaganda and anti-Semitic talking points, deliberately distort the way the conflict is depicted. This helps create fertile ground for prejudice. It also paves the way for developments like the recent U.N. Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry report, which traffics in blatant anti-Semitism and falsely accuses Israel of being an “apartheid state.”

The consequences, both in the United States and abroad, of a broken media that can’t be trusted do not merely affect the world of journalism. When members of the press lie to advance a cause, they are not simply spreading misinformation; they are also creating an environment in which democracy fails and anti-Semitism advances.

Mark Regev: Israel, the Suez Crisis and accusations of colonialist collusion

Even before the arrival of the new Soviet arms, Egypt had turned Israel’s Red Sea port of Eilat into a white elephant by blockading the Straits of Tiran to shipping to and from Israel. At the same time, the Egyptian military was orchestrating repeated Palestinian Fedayeen terror attacks, all while beefing up its threatening presence in northern Sinai. Israel felt it had to preempt before Soviet weapons dramatically changed the balance of power.

For London and Paris, the Suez War was an unmitigated disaster. The US opposed their attack, viewing it as anachronistic colonial-type gunboat diplomacy, detrimental to western interests in the Cold War. Washington unabashedly compelled France and Britain to withdraw – applying harsh economic pressure that threatened the solvency of its European allies.

The British and French, who earlier in the century had carved up the Middle East into respective spheres of influence, were now exposed as second-rate world powers. Their Suez defeat was the harbinger of the loss of French Algeria and the demise of Britain’s leadership role in the region, which was transferred to the Americans. In the end, it was not Nasser who was forced from office, but Eden and Mollet.

For Israel, the 1956 military victory failed to advance peace, or, in the absence of Arab recognition, any changes to the territorial status-quo: Washington insisted on a full pullback to the 1949 lines.

Nonetheless, the war lifted the blockade of Eilat, and Israeli deterrence was enhanced, inaugurating a decade of relative quiet on the southern frontier.

In addition, Israel’s adept handling of American demands in the months following the crisis led to an improvement in US-Israel ties. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who in 1956 had been critical of Israel’s behavior, in 1960 became the first American leader to host an Israeli prime minister, Ben-Gurion, at the White House.

If there was a downside for Israel, it was foreseen during the cabinet deliberations on the authorization of the offensive. The ministers from the left-wing Ahdut Haavoda (Unity of Labor) party expressed concern about Israel’s “unholy” collaboration with European colonial powers (though they still voted, together with Ben-Gurion’s Mapai ministers, for the attack).

Soviet premier Nikolai Bulganin pressed this theme in an angry letter to Ben-Gurion dated November 5, 1956, charging that Israel had acted “as a tool of foreign imperialist powers.”

Israel was born in a struggle against British colonialism and should have enjoyed a natural affinity from countries that had similarly battled European empires for their freedom. But the Sinai Campaign injured Israel’s standing among the growing number of newly independent African and Asian nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, where Nasser remained a hero.

Regrettably, the 1956 depiction of Israel as a colonialist power has had remarkable longevity. Some seven decades later, this erroneous accusation is still being actively propagated by those seeking to undermine Israel’s legitimacy – just ask Jewish students studying at Western universities.

David Collier: Twitter silences me (twice) (again) – siding with the antisemites And then there is the Scottish scam

But it doesn’t end there. I received a second simultaneous suspension. Now this – even more than the first- is patently absurd. I recently exposed a fundraising scam in Scotland – and I wrote a tweet to publish the article. That tweet apparently also broke the rules for ‘hateful conduct’:

Trying my hardest I fail to understand just what could possibly be wrong with this one. An antisemite did create a partnership with a scammer in Gaza who does have family links to both Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They are currently taking £1000s from people in Scotland and their campaigns are getting increasingly absurd. Each of my points is factually accuate and thanks to this expose I believe Police Scotland have now got involved.

But as it stands, I have been no-platformed again – for doing nothing but fighting antisemitism. And again, it is easy to find the malicious intent and coordination behind those reporting me:

Twitter and minority groups
This is undoubtedly malicious. It is also clearly coordinated. And above all it is a blatant attempt from Islamists and the hard left – to have me completely silenced. The question therefore becomes – why does Twitter – who can protect me from this – *CHOOSE* to side with them and silence my voice?

Is it numbers? Jews are always outnumbered. If Twitter by default sides with the majority then Twitter actively helps bully minority groups. For the Jewish people – the quintessential minority group – this is really bad news.

Twitter also refuses to grant me the basic cover it could provide – (by giving my account a blue tick). Twitter is actively paving the way for antisemites to attack Jews who fight antisemitism and refusing to give them protection they can easily give. Haven’t they kind of got this all the wrong way round?

For now – I am appealing the suspensions. If you do not know me already – I will always fight my corner because I am speaking up for Jews everywhere. This refusal to back down so easily means I cannot currently post this on Twitter. If you have an account – please help me share it there.

Read More