Connect with us

RSS

Why Is CNN Airing Palestinian Lies and Propaganda as Journalism?

Christiane Amanpour on the May 22, 2023, episode of her CNN show “Amanpour.” Photo: Screenshot

At 2PM on October 7, as Hamas’ barbaric attack on Israel was still ongoing, Christiane Amanpour gave her CNN platform to Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian Authority (PA) ambassador to the UK, who blamed that day’s attack on Israel and compared it to Israel’s self-defense with almost no pushback from the anchor. Nine months later, with 120 Israelis and tourists still being held captive by Hamas, Amanpour continues to promote guests who distort reality.

On June 25, Christiane Amanpour interviewed Palestinian propagandist and founder of Al-Haq, Raja Shehadeh. Throughout the interview, both Amanpour and Shehadeh engaged in a tactic of reversing victim and offender, and their descriptions of events often bore little resemblance to reality. While acknowledging that the October 7 attacks occurred, and that Hamas’ killing of civilians was unjustified, both acted totally oblivious to the cause-and-effect relationship that attack had on subsequent events.

Among other topics, Amanpour and Shehadeh discussed Shehadeh’s new book titled, What Does Israel Fear From Palestine? In the wake of October 7, the title beggars belief. In 2005, Israel evacuated every single civilian and soldier from Gaza, leaving behind a greenhouse business that was gifted to the people of Gaza and a beautiful Mediterranean coastline for tourism. At that time, there was no occupation and no blockade, and the people of Gaza, functionally, had independence. In a 2006 election, their first opportunity for self-determination, the people of Gaza elected Hamas. Hamas then started wars with Israel in 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021, culminating in 2023 in the vicious attack in which 1,200 Israeli men, women, and children were burned to death, raped, tortured, and killed, with another 240 were taken hostage to Gaza.

What does Israel fear from Palestine, indeed.

But Amanpour’s first question to Shehadeh about the book was, “given that Israel essentially has the balance of power, why do you think Israel fears Palestine? Do you think it does?”

Shehadeh replied, “I think they fear the very existence of Palestine, because if Palestine exists, then the Israeli myth, foundation myth would have to be amended, because the foundation myth of Israel was that they came to a land that was empty, that didn’t have any Palestinians or anybody, and they established Israel from year zero, and so to recognize Palestine would require reconfiguration of the Israeli myth, and that’s the main fear, I think.”

This is false, of course.

Early Zionists were well-aware that Arabs were living in the Ottoman- and then British-controlled region of Palestine, and, as Efraim Karsh has explained, “took for granted the full equality of the Arab minority in the prospective Jewish state.” The population of the region prior to waves of Zionist immigration was sparse, and the Arabs who lived there did not call themselves “Palestinians.” But no one thought that there were no people living there at the time. The relevant point is that there was no sovereign state there.

Amanpour then said to Shehadeh, “you come from a family that has been involved in the attempt to broker peace for decades, since ‘48 frankly, your father, when you were a teenager in 1967, submitted a peace proposal to the Israeli government on behalf of the Palestinians and of course all these decades later there is no peace. So Israel always blames the Palestinians for not grabbing a chance when it’s there, or walking away from all the best opportunities it’s given backed by the United States et cetera. Palestinians always blame Israel for, quote unquote, not being serious, for continuing to build settlements while talking the peace talk. What, given that, what is your actual hope for this dynamic to be broken? Do you think it ever will be?”

Amanpour’s question itself is remarkable, not least of all because Aziz Shehadeh doesn’t appear to have ever had any authority to act on behalf of anyone other than himself, or possibly, 50 other “prominent” individuals. He certainly was not acting “on behalf of the Palestinians.”

According to his obituary, he was “condemned by the Palestine Liberation Organization as ‘a traitor’ for proposing a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel,” and The New York Times reported that the Fatah Revolutionary Council claimed to have stabbed Aziz Shehadeh to death for advocating “capitulation, humiliating coexistence and liquidation of the Palestine cause.”

Yet, Amanpour speaks as if the elder Shehadeh’s proposal was in some way official. More to the point, though, after Arabs started two wars and lost territory in both, the proposal was for a return to a status quo ante that had never existed or been implemented, because it was rejected by the Arab side — the 1947 Partition Plan. It also demanded that the Jews share sovereignty over their newly liberated holiest city, after being denied any access at all to their holy sites within that city for 19 years. In other words, it was a pipe dream, not a plan.

Predictably, Amanpour’s guest responded by blaming the lack of peace on the settlements. But he never explained, nor did Amanpour ask him, why the settlements can’t become part of a future Palestinian state — or if they can, how they preclude the establishment of one.

“What did you learn from your father, again you were a teenager when that took place, and you went on to be a lawyer, you founded Al-Haq, the human rights group, you’re an activist. What did you learn from everything you saw as you were growing up, and has that been changed irrevocably, irrevocably since October 7, or not?” Amanpour then asked.

While Amanpour calls Al-Haq a “human rights group,” NGO Monitor has documented the group’s extensive ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terror organization known for hijacking airplanes.

These ties include, “according to multiple Arabic-language media sources, Al-Haq General Director Shawan Jabarin represented the PFLP at a December 2011 meeting of … a reconciliatory body between Hamas, Fatah, PIJ, the PFLP, and other Palestinian factions.” Moreover, “Jabarin was convicted in 1985 for recruiting and arranging training for members for the PFLP.”

After paying lip-service to the idea that, “we have to find a way to live together,” Shehadeh replies, “but since October 7th [it] has become much more difficult because they dehumanize the Palestinians to such an extent, that it’s difficult now to imagine how we can make peace with them.”

Later in the interview, he repeats the claim that it is Israelis who have dehumanized the Palestinians of Gaza with their response to October 7, and not the attack itself that dehumanized — and terrorized — Israelis. This is a manipulative reversal of victim and offender. While October 7 is mentioned, the significance of the actual events of that day, and the effects of that attack on the prospects for peace, seem impossibly lost on both interviewer and guest.

Shehadeh goes on to claim that it the wake of the Oslo Accords, it was the Palestinian side that accepted coexistence and was “ready to live with the Israelis and to make peace based on justice and splitting the land between the two people.” But as both former US President Bill Clinton and his former American ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk have made clear, it was Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat who rejected the terms of Oslo.

Amanpour should have corrected her guest here, but she did not.

Amanpour does press Shehadeh about Hamas: “more and more, Palestinians in Gaza are daring to speak out against Hamas, and they’re basically saying these guys are useless at governance, they’ve rained — they’ve contributed to raining this hell on us. And we hear more and more about Sinwar himself and other Hamas leaders who essentially believe, and they’ve told journalists … the more blood, the more spotlight on our situation. And we spoke to a doctor who saved Sinwar’s life in an Israeli prison, and he said Sinwar told him … a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand Palestinian deaths would be worth, like other liberation movements, he said Algeria, Vietnam, and et cetera, would be worth it if we got our rights. What do you think of that?”

Shehadeh replies, “Well, I think this is too harsh, but I think at the same time that Israel could not have continued to oppress the Palestinians and put them in an open-air prison and expect them to be calm and silent and not resist. And Hamas resisted, and they had the right to resist, because the blockade was an act of war on the part of Israel which continued for 16 years. And an act of war can be resisted under international law. And they resisted by breaking the barrier. So, they had the right to do that. What they didn’t have the right was to kill the Israelis — 1,000 Israelis along the– and that was, I think, a crime, of course.”

Here, Amanpour fails to call out her guest’s inconsistency. Although he attempts to make his case under international law, he fails to note that the 2011 Palmer Report found that blockade of Gaza was legal under international law. Amanpour, too, fails to note this, and allowed her guest to make the false claim that it was the blockade that was illegal and the October 7 attack that was legal. Although he takes pains to distinguish the attacks on civilians from the breaking of the barrier between Israel and Gaza and the invasion, he still justifies that invasion based on a false claim about international law. Again, it’s a reversal of victim and offender.

Amanpour moves on to the “universities [that] have been destroyed … cultural centers have been destroyed,” but is oblivious to the contradiction between the beautiful Gaza that was destroyed and Shehadeh’s description of it as an “open-air prison.”

She asks, “do you see an intent in terms of wiping out Palestinian culture or do you see it as part of the general destruction of Gaza in this pursuit of Hamas?” Shehadeh of course takes this hook, “I think there’s an intent to destroy Gaza and culture in Gaza. And I think that the denial by the Israelis about, just as there was denial about ‘48, there’s a denial about the destruction of culture in Gaza and the people of Gaza entirely.”

The fact that Hamas used homes, mosques, and schools not only to store but even to manufacture weapons, is irrelevant to both Amanpour and Shehadeh.

This is not journalism. This was nearly 13 minutes of anti-Israel propaganda under the imprimatur of CNN.

Karen Bekker is the Assistant Director in the Media Response Team at CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis.

The post Why Is CNN Airing Palestinian Lies and Propaganda as Journalism? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 223
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister

This is a special year-end edition of Doorstep Postings, the periodic political commentary column written by Josh Lieblein for The CJN.

You all know the story that we tell this time of year: a group of Jews decided they were done with Jewish particularism and said, “Let us go an make a covenant with the nations around us” (1 Maccabees 1:11) and decided to gaslight the rest of the community into seeing things their way—and it ended very, very badly for them.

As such, Hannukah is a time for the revealing of secrets, the banishing of shadows, and the airing of grievances. Having recently reached a milestone age associated with acquiring Jewish wisdom, my own personal miracle is that after enduring 40 years of threats/promises of the imminent collapse of society and sweeping revolution, 40 years of lectures about the moral and physical decay of the West, 40 years of the most obnoxiously self-righteous folks walking the planet breathlessly informing us all of the latest irreconcilable contradiction within capitalism, I’ve finally gotten to the point where I can’t muster anything more than an eye roll anymore. 

This is because, just like every year before it, 2024 was a year of unmitigated disaster for our self-appointed reformers. I’m not just talking about Trump’s resurgence, Ukraine’s persistence, the overthrow in Syria, Hamas’s withering away, proclamations that we have reached ‘peak wokeness’, the rise of artificial intelligence and the tech bros, and the failure of centrist electoral projects everywhere but here in Canada. This was the year where the left willingly and gleefully discarded the one thing they had going for them: their tenuously held moral authority.

The success of any left-wing project hinges on successfully convincing a critical mass of undecideds that they are not like the amoral and callous right who wants you to die for their profit motive. They’ve got your best interests at heart. They’re going to sit down and hear you out and govern with joy and hope and kindness, which are alien concepts to those weird, cruel, genocidal and greedy conservatives. 

Now those of us who have been on this merry-go-round for a few turns know that it’s not that simple. Plenty of left-folks want to actively harm the rich and those they deem to be colonizers, bigots, and other associated ruling class bootlickers. The violence perpetrated by those in power justifies violence in return. This is a somewhat difficult platform to get elected on, however, because people have a bad habit of hardening their hearts in response to being threatened. And so we need suitable empty vessels to try and convince the voters that the radicals are just that: loud angry voices on the margins. The political operatives charged with laundering the baser left-wing impulses must carefully use language to make it seem that there is some daylight between them and the ends-justify-the-means crowd. 

This is a difficult task to perform because it involves not only fooling a plurality of people, if not all of the time, then for as long as the particular political project lasts. First, the operatives must trick themselves into believing in their own unimpeachable moral authority. Only once they have convinced themselves that they are the most empathic and equity-minded folks to ever draw breath can they engineer the rise of someone like Justin Trudeau. Anyone who was paying attention a decade ago could see the parallel rise of two movements: lifelong Liberals working on earned media pieces announcing the return of the Trudeau dynasty, and mostly anonymous lunatics on Tumblr who were still licking their wounds from the failure of the Occupy Movement, claiming that it was literally impossible to be racist against white people because ‘racism’ against white people wasn’t systematic. 

And as it happened, a lot of the self-proclaimed radicals bought the hype, because they saw in Trudeau something they know all too well in themselves. The desire to be loved and celebrated and told they are good, kind and moral despite, and in many cases because of, their own desire to commit and justify violence in the name of creating a better and more equal world. The Trudeau of 2015 was no less authoritarian than the figure clinging to power at the end of 2024. All that’s changed is that the radicals can no longer excuse Trudeau’s narcissism while holding out for him to bring about a world that is more equal—which is to say, a world where they have the power to do harm to their enemies. These days, Mr. Grow the Economy From the Heart Outward seems more interested in trying and failing to implement GST holidays while forcing Canada Post workers back to actual work. 

Still even as the Liberals try to envision a future without Trudeau, they remain engaged in other muddled projects, such as trying to sell the idea that Canada is engaged in an ongoing genocide but must somehow endure lest we be absorbed into the sucking Trumpist hellhole directly below us. Clearly, the Liberal Party is no longer a place for voters who are into sexy CEO-murderers, or who think Oct. 7 was an act of righteous resistance to oppression, or take China’s claims of imminent world domination seriously while denouncing Elon Musk’s similarly ridiculous pronouncements. 

But even though both the more and less radical wings of the progressive movement have had an off year and are barely speaking to one another again, we can rest assured that so long as they have to convince themselves of their own goodness they will continue to try and split this atom. Attempts to reject binaries will lead to more black and white thinking. Progressive governments will fall back into the status quo. Tumblrs will give way to Blueskys. Trudeau will fall out of favour for a few years only to be asked back after a few years of Poilievre—or some other Liberal saviour will rescue the brand. They will cast about for a new podcast hero or a leftist version of the Hawk Tuah Girl. They will insist that senile politicians are fit as fiddles, anoint barely literate fan-fiction writers as cultural arbiters, and cast lawbreakers as secular saints while vilifying anyone who’s afraid of being attacked on the street or public transit.

If the past 40 years are anything to go by, they will be as confused as ever as to why capitalism persists, why people don’t accept carbon taxes, why the world fails to condemn Israel to their liking, why poor and rural folks don’t “vote their interests”, why voters fall for Poilievre’s slogans, and why there are attempts to draw an equivalence between CEOs who condemn people to death and the people who kill those CEOs. The answer to all these questions are the same, and it’s that impure oil just burns differently—and trying to pass it off as holy can only come off as gaslighting. 

Josh Lieblein can be reached at joshualieblein@gmail.com for your response to Doorstep Postings.

The post Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Post Views: 25
Continue Reading

RSS

Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister

This is a special year-end edition of Doorstep Postings, the periodic political commentary column written by Josh Lieblein for The CJN.

You all know the story that we tell this time of year: a group of Jews decided they were done with Jewish particularism and said, “Let us go an make a covenant with the nations around us” (1 Maccabees 1:11) and decided to gaslight the rest of the community into seeing things their way—and it ended very, very badly for them.

As such, Hannukah is a time for the revealing of secrets, the banishing of shadows, and the airing of grievances. Having recently reached a milestone age associated with acquiring Jewish wisdom, my own personal miracle is that after enduring 40 years of threats/promises of the imminent collapse of society and sweeping revolution, 40 years of lectures about the moral and physical decay of the West, 40 years of the most obnoxiously self-righteous folks walking the planet breathlessly informing us all of the latest irreconcilable contradiction within capitalism, I’ve finally gotten to the point where I can’t muster anything more than an eye roll anymore. 

This is because, just like every year before it, 2024 was a year of unmitigated disaster for our self-appointed reformers. I’m not just talking about Trump’s resurgence, Ukraine’s persistence, the overthrow in Syria, Hamas’s withering away, proclamations that we have reached ‘peak wokeness’, the rise of artificial intelligence and the tech bros, and the failure of centrist electoral projects everywhere but here in Canada. This was the year where the left willingly and gleefully discarded the one thing they had going for them: their tenuously held moral authority.

The success of any left-wing project hinges on successfully convincing a critical mass of undecideds that they are not like the amoral and callous right who wants you to die for their profit motive. They’ve got your best interests at heart. They’re going to sit down and hear you out and govern with joy and hope and kindness, which are alien concepts to those weird, cruel, genocidal and greedy conservatives. 

Now those of us who have been on this merry-go-round for a few turns know that it’s not that simple. Plenty of left-folks want to actively harm the rich and those they deem to be colonizers, bigots, and other associated ruling class bootlickers. The violence perpetrated by those in power justifies violence in return. This is a somewhat difficult platform to get elected on, however, because people have a bad habit of hardening their hearts in response to being threatened. And so we need suitable empty vessels to try and convince the voters that the radicals are just that: loud angry voices on the margins. The political operatives charged with laundering the baser left-wing impulses must carefully use language to make it seem that there is some daylight between them and the ends-justify-the-means crowd. 

This is a difficult task to perform because it involves not only fooling a plurality of people, if not all of the time, then for as long as the particular political project lasts. First, the operatives must trick themselves into believing in their own unimpeachable moral authority. Only once they have convinced themselves that they are the most empathic and equity-minded folks to ever draw breath can they engineer the rise of someone like Justin Trudeau. Anyone who was paying attention a decade ago could see the parallel rise of two movements: lifelong Liberals working on earned media pieces announcing the return of the Trudeau dynasty, and mostly anonymous lunatics on Tumblr who were still licking their wounds from the failure of the Occupy Movement, claiming that it was literally impossible to be racist against white people because ‘racism’ against white people wasn’t systematic. 

And as it happened, a lot of the self-proclaimed radicals bought the hype, because they saw in Trudeau something they know all too well in themselves. The desire to be loved and celebrated and told they are good, kind and moral despite, and in many cases because of, their own desire to commit and justify violence in the name of creating a better and more equal world. The Trudeau of 2015 was no less authoritarian than the figure clinging to power at the end of 2024. All that’s changed is that the radicals can no longer excuse Trudeau’s narcissism while holding out for him to bring about a world that is more equal—which is to say, a world where they have the power to do harm to their enemies. These days, Mr. Grow the Economy From the Heart Outward seems more interested in trying and failing to implement GST holidays while forcing Canada Post workers back to actual work. 

Still even as the Liberals try to envision a future without Trudeau, they remain engaged in other muddled projects, such as trying to sell the idea that Canada is engaged in an ongoing genocide but must somehow endure lest we be absorbed into the sucking Trumpist hellhole directly below us. Clearly, the Liberal Party is no longer a place for voters who are into sexy CEO-murderers, or who think Oct. 7 was an act of righteous resistance to oppression, or take China’s claims of imminent world domination seriously while denouncing Elon Musk’s similarly ridiculous pronouncements. 

But even though both the more and less radical wings of the progressive movement have had an off year and are barely speaking to one another again, we can rest assured that so long as they have to convince themselves of their own goodness they will continue to try and split this atom. Attempts to reject binaries will lead to more black and white thinking. Progressive governments will fall back into the status quo. Tumblrs will give way to Blueskys. Trudeau will fall out of favour for a few years only to be asked back after a few years of Poilievre—or some other Liberal saviour will rescue the brand. They will cast about for a new podcast hero or a leftist version of the Hawk Tuah Girl. They will insist that senile politicians are fit as fiddles, anoint barely literate fan-fiction writers as cultural arbiters, and cast lawbreakers as secular saints while vilifying anyone who’s afraid of being attacked on the street or public transit.

If the past 40 years are anything to go by, they will be as confused as ever as to why capitalism persists, why people don’t accept carbon taxes, why the world fails to condemn Israel to their liking, why poor and rural folks don’t “vote their interests”, why voters fall for Poilievre’s slogans, and why there are attempts to draw an equivalence between CEOs who condemn people to death and the people who kill those CEOs. The answer to all these questions are the same, and it’s that impure oil just burns differently—and trying to pass it off as holy can only come off as gaslighting. 

Josh Lieblein can be reached at joshualieblein@gmail.com for your response to Doorstep Postings.

The post Doorstep Postings: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau’s final Hanukkah as prime minister appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Post Views: 0
Continue Reading

RSS

IDF Releases Investigation into Discovery of 6 Hostages’ Bodies

i24 News – The IDF released on Tuesday the investigation into the murder of six abductees at the end of August: Carmel Gat, Eden Yerushalmi,

Goldberg-Polin, Alexander Lubnov, Almog Sarusi, and Sergeant Ori Danino.

According to the findings of the investigation, when the IDF operation began in the area of the tunnel, Major General Nitzan Alon did not believe abductees would be in the area. As the operation continued, the military assessment said the probability was even lower.

The abductee who was extricated, Qaid Farhan Alkadi, was found alone, as neither he nor additional terrorists taken from the area provided indications to the additional abductees.

In the absence of new information, the operation continued in the area, the investigation said. Only then did the forces locate the bodies of the six abductees. In addition, forensic findings were found indicating that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar had been there. It remains unclear whether he gave the order to murder the abductees himself. No signs of struggle during the murder were found in autopsies.

IDF Spokesperson Daniel Hagri visited the tunnel and described the harsh conditions in which the six abductees endured. “They were heroes who were cold-bloodedly murdered by terrorists who build tunnels under children’s rooms,” he said. “We will hunt them down and know exactly who they are, we will find the one who murdered them. The teams here collect all the evidence from the scene.”

“We didn’t know the exact location of the hostages in the tunnel. They were killed before we could reach them. We are investigating the incident of their names being leaked prior to their rescue. This is a very serious event that is harmful to the families and the security of the forces on the ground.”

The post IDF Releases Investigation into Discovery of 6 Hostages’ Bodies first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 25
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News