Here's what Slate has to say about me:
"The
anti-Obama peace-process skeptics
can’t help but gloat. As Barry Rubin, a conservative, pro-Israel
American pundit put it on his Facebook page: “I think we have just won a
huge victory … Obama has admitted defeat on trying to bully,
manipulate, or pressure Israel.'"
This is a very revealing sentence in several respects:
--First
of all, the
article was not on my Facebook page. On my Facebook page was a link to
my article in PJMedia. Zacharia is not a friend on my Facebook page so
she could not have seen the material quoted there. Consequently, she
wrote it that way to avoid having to admit the existence of PJ Media and
linking to that publication. By saying something was on my Facebook
page--rather than on one of the biggest news/analysis sites on the
Internet--I am to be made to sound like a basement-dwelling blogger.
--As
I have said repeatedly and everyone knows me knows, I am not a
"conservative." I have repeatedly said that I am a traditional liberal
and explain
this in detail in many articles. The point here is to deny that anyone
except conservatives can criticize Obama. This is to signal Slate
readers that they should ignore what I say. It is ironic since one of my
main points is the hijacking of liberalism by the left which then
redefines liberalism in its own image. By the way, one reason it is
necessary to appear in conservative publications is because the mass
media has closed out--except in very limited ways--dissenting opinions
about the Middle East.
--The
word "gloat" is intended to make the "liberal" readers of Slate angry
and ignore what I said. Gloating is a nasty behavior,
bragging, taking pleasure in others failures, etc. Change the words to
read: gloating about the poor state of the U.S. economy, gloating about
the mess in Egypt. The use of the word gloating cancels out the fact
that someone was correct and that the writer was wrong. An attempt to
understand an important issue has been turned into a ping-pong game.
--The
word "American." Yes, I'm proud to be an America and to think the
United States is a great and wonderful country, unlike many (most?) of
those on the left. But I write largely from an Israeli perspective. By
leaving that out the author then is saying: Not a perspective from
Israel
but just another domestic opponent of the president. Maybe she's a bit
sensitive because she's in California, thousands of miles away from the
scene and I am actually here. From what she writes I might as well be in
California, too, getting my information from the New York Times or Los Angeles Times and not an hour away by car from the Gaza Strip (five minutes away by rocket, see below).
--By
not mentioning my being Israeli, who is the "we" who has won a
vicrtory. I meant the "we" as Israeli interests. But by the way she
wrote it (Zacharia teaches communications, remember) it would appear
that the "we" are American conservative opponents of Obama! So suppose
you like Israel but also like Obama. That turns this from something you
would regard as a good thing--good for Israel--into a bad thing--some
nasty, smirking person attacking your political leader.
--By not mentioning my being Israeli, who is the "we" who has won a victory. I meant the "we" as Israeli interests. But by the way she wrote it (Zacharia teaches communications, remember) it would appear that the "we" are American conservative opponents of Obama! So suppose you like Israel but also like Obama. That turns this from something you would regard as a good thing--good for Israel--into a bad thing--some nasty, smirking person attacking your political leader.
--By not mentioning my being Israeli, who is the "we" who has won a victory. I meant the "we" as Israeli interests. But by the way she wrote it (Zacharia teaches communications, remember) it would appear that the "we" are American conservative opponents of Obama! So suppose you like Israel but also like Obama. That turns this from something you would regard as a good thing--good for Israel--into a bad thing--some nasty, smirking person attacking your political leader.
--And,
of course, all the reasons I give for my analysis are left out. The
statement must be made to seem like an argument of a bitter critic, not
an analysis based on facts and long study.
--As for Zacharia, here's what I wrote about her here six months ago:
"The
elite currently in power in the Western mass media will never
comprehend the Middle East. There is a problem with bias, for sure, but
the big issue is the impenetrable ignorance of the very people entrusted
with explaining the region to others. They insist on imposing their own
misconceptions on the
situation while ignoring the evidence."
Yep, same thing as now.
"Consider Janine Zacharia. What a distinguished resume: Jerusalem bureau chief and Middle East correspondent for the Washington Post (2009-2011), chief diplomatic correspondent for Bloomberg News (2005-2009), and before that five
years working for the Jerusalem Post in Washington, D.C., and
another five years working for Reuters and other publications from
Jerusalem. Right now she’s a visiting lecturer at Stanford University in
communications.
"Surely,
such a person must understand the region’s issues, and if anyone isn’t
going to have an anti-Israel bias in the mass media it would be her. And
she isn’t anti-Israel in a conscious, political sense. Indeed, she
obviously views herself as sympathetic. Rather, her assumptions make her
type of views inevitably anti-Israel and, more broadly, inevitably
destructive of U.S. interests on
other issues."
I think I tried to characterize her fairly rather than using a stereotype. But here's the best part:
''Here’s her article in
Slate. The title is “Why Israel’s Gaza Campaign is Doomed.” Not why
this response is the best of a set of difficult options; not why the
world should support Israel; not why Hamas should be removed from power
with international support but why Israel is wrong and stupid to fight.
“Doomed” is a strong word."
You see! Again, no sense of context or what's really going on, just two teams playing a game and she knows which team she is on.
"The
subhead — adapted from Zacharia’s text — is “Benjamin Netanyahu’s
decision to bomb Hamas militants will leave Israel more isolated,
insecure, and alone.” Not the decision of Israel’s unanimous leadership
including first and foremost its military and defense experts but that
of a prime minister who now plays a role for the American media most
closely approximated to that held by former President George W. Bush."
Now
think about it. Six months ago she wrote an article
saying that Israel was being defeated and was badly isolated. I wrote
the opposite. I was right. Obama is in Israel saying nice things and not
pressuring Israel. Nobody is pressuring Israel. And Israel isn't
insecure, or at least to the extent that is true it is largely due to
White House policies.
Oh, and this is rich. She concludes that the American media hate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as much as Bush. True, but that's through the work of people like her.
Oh, and this is rich. She concludes that the American media hate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as much as Bush. True, but that's through the work of people like her.
So
I was right; Zacharia and Obama were wrong (you can see all the quotes
about how he was going to solve the conflict) but this point must
either be concealed from the American readers or explained away so as
to make them more firmly believe all the wrong ideas they have believed
up to now.
It's a great teachable moment but another example about how the left-wing media refuses to teach.
This article is published on PJMedia.
-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Please be subscriber 32,186 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------
This article is published on PJMedia.
-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Please be subscriber 32,186 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of
the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for
Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment