Sherri Mandell: How Brian Williams (and Tom Brokaw) betrayed my family
After talking about how we came to Israel, we told Mr. Williams that Koby and Yosef had been eighth-grade boys who cut school, went hiking in the canyon behind our home in 2001, and were murdered by Palestinians terrorists, beaten with rocks.Douglas Murray: Obama Makes Up Facts - Again
He sympathized and then asked whether Seth had a gun. Seth said yes—he had one locked in a safe upstairs in the bedroom.
“Would you mind going upstairs and getting the gun so we can film you with it?” his producer asked Seth.
Seth said no. We both realized that they wanted to stage a scene – to reinforce a stereotype, a visual of the angry rifle-toting, trigger-happy settler.
A few days later, we saw the interview on the Internet. I was furious. I wasn’t upset by what Seth and I had said. We were distraught about the way our story was framed. To open the segment, NBC interviewed an Israeli – an English speaker from Tel Aviv – about her views on the intifada. She sat on the couch in her Tel Aviv apartment and said: The settlers are a cancer on today’s society. They are the reason for all of the problems in Israel.
Then the newscaster said: And here is an example of the people she is talking about: Seth and Sherri Mandell. Settlers from Tekoa. And the camera panned to show us sitting on our couch in our sunroom.
Of course I knew the station wanted to use us to ignite emotion in its viewers. I knew that the media was about conflict, drama and ratings. But how could they malign and betray us like that? How could they mislead us into thinking that they were going to tell our story, our story alone? Nobody had informed us that my son’s murder would be folded into a specious debate about the settlements.
The next morning I wrote to Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw. I sent them an email that said that the way they had framed the broadcast was outrageous, and that they had done us—and the memory of our son Koby — an injustice. They had let the woman from Tel Aviv attack us without giving us a chance to defend ourselves. It was as if she and they had personally called us a cancer.
Tom Brokaw emailed me back. He wrote that the night the program had aired, he had been out to dinner with a Jewish couple, friends of his who had seen the broadcast and thought that it was just fine. A lovely Jewish couple who he had dined with had found the broadcast unobjectionable. Indeed they had felt that we, the settlers, were portrayed very positively.
Since it was President Obama who brought these up, you might have thought he would have had the information to know a little about the background. In particular that the Crusades -- gruesome as they were -- were not some early outbreak of "Islamophobia." They were an effort, by Christian nations in Europe, to defend Christians in the Middle East who were being slaughtered by Muslim tribes, and specifically to take back the city of Jerusalem from the Muslim armies who had conquered it. The question of whom Jerusalem ought to have belonged to is a long and interesting one, but unless you think that Muslim armies should have been allowed to conquer Jerusalem and wipe out Christians across the Middle East a millennium ago, it is hard to see why the Crusades should be regarded as a particular sin of Christians. And Christian Americans in particular might rightly wonder what guilt they are meant to feel for a religious war that took place centuries before America as a country even existed.Edgar Davidson: Obama: Nazis were not Nazis and were no worse than the Jews who slaughtered Amalekites* (satire)
As for slavery, do we really need to keep going around this one? Because while it is true that you can find religious people who endorsed slavery -- in the Bible and elsewhere -- any historian would find it hard to deny that the movement to abolish slavery was also led by Christians. Slavery is still practiced by Muslims in Mauritania and, as recently seen, by Boko Haram. It is a very strange interpretation of history that is willing to put the blame for slavery (a worldwide practice at most times in history) on Christians, but to ignore William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) and other Christians who led the world in fighting to abolish it.
Only someone ignorant would claim that Islam is the only religion in whose name bad things have been done. But only a historian with an agenda would try to kick over the actual complexities to invent his own set of facts. In Britain, this effort to manipulate the facts in order to come to a pre-ordained conclusion is known as the "Whig interpretation of history." Perhaps Americans might rename it the "Obama interpretation of history."
Following his National Prayer Breakfast speech (in which he said Islamist terrorists are not Islamist and that Christians were just as brutal as ISIS) President Obama addressed Jewish prayer leaders today, telling them that the vast majority of those who claimed to be Nazis during World War 2 were not Nazis at all:Palestinian Dictator Mahmoud Abbas Gets a Free Pass
"Everybody knows that 99.9999999999% of all Nazis were peace-loving folk who wanted exactly the same things as leftist, casually anti-semitic American/Kenyans like me. The tiny proportion who murdered people to further the cause of Nazism were, by definition, anti-Nazis rather than Nazis because nowhere in Hitler's Mein Kampf was it written that they had to do this.
Moreover, the so-called Nazis who murdered 6 million Jews actually did far more damage to Nazis than they did to the Jews, because they gave Nazis a really bad name and there was a terrible backlash against normal, peace-loving Nazis. So, basically the real victims of so-called Nazism were in fact Nazis who wanted nothing to do with what those anti-Nazis were doing in the name of Nazism. Had I been President during World War 2 absolutely none of this would have happened because I would have made sure that the word Nazi and all its derivations could never have been used in a negative context."
President Obama went on to admonish Jews who complained of brutal mistreatment under the so-called Nazis who we now know were really anti-Nazis:
"You Jews of all people need to get off of your high horses on this one. It was, after all, less than 4,000 years since the Jews slaughtered the Amalekites and less than 3,000 years since they slaughtered the harmless Persian Minister Haman and his followers at the very same time as diplomats were trying to arrange a peaceful final solution with King Ahasuerus to the Jewish problem in Persia."
Which “moderate” Arab president publicly hugged the genocidal leader of Sudan last week? Which Middle Eastern “reformer” just entered his 10th year of a four-year term? Which Western “ally” days ago ordered an investigation into a cartoonist for possibly drawing Mohammed?
The answer is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
These three stories barely made it into Western press. Why? Put simply, the bar has been set so low that they were not deemed newsworthy. An Arab leader who doesn’t allow elections? Yawn. A Middle Eastern president who embraces one of the worst mass murderers in recent history? Nothing to see here.
There is a tragic disconnect between Western rhetoric and Arab reality. Abbas, if one listens to leaders of the free world, is a moderate, reformer and ally. He is better than Hamas, after all, isn’t he?





















