Yet another critical discussion that really should be on national TV IMO.
But on a side note, while I am much more on Cenk’s side over the issue, I also have serious concerns about his health when he gets riled up by this. As for Ben, I can totally empathise with his desire to defend his people and I have no doubt he truly believes that is what he is doing. But IMO his view is evidence of a biased Israeli groupthink which can only perpetuate the actions of their current government.
I am reminded of what happened in Northern Ireland (different situations I know, but still many similarities) in that Netanyahu’s red line of “all Hamas must be destroyed” is along the same lines as the Unionists’ one of “decommissioning” which stated that there could be no peace until the IRA had given up all their weapons. Neither is a definable position. When would we know the IRA had given up all their guns? When would we know all Hamas members were taken off the board? They are both policies that can only prolong a conflict. BUT – eventually the Unionists did relent after a lot of diplomacy from all sides, so we can only hope that eventually something similar can happen in the Middle East.
I quote The Young Turks a lot on this site so in a way I’m glad to have the opportunity to show an area where I disagree with them. Although for the above segment, while I agree with the actual. point being made by the show’s Executive Producer Ana Kasparian, I really do think she devotes too much time expressing it.
Anyway I voiced my view in the form of a comment on YouTube, which will probably never be read, but for the record I’ll copy it here anyway…
Well I know Anna said she doesn’t care if someone disagrees with her but I’m going to do it anyway. Thing is, it’s not her main point of this segment where I disagree.
Of course it’s wrong to condone or defend or rebrand Hamas’ actions. I’m 100% with her on that, in fact to me it’s pretty obvious.
My problem is with the presentation. While her point is one that needs to be made, I totally disagree that it’s one that needs to be made in the A Block of the main TYT show, while finding about a dozen different ways to call people with those views “stupid” in the process.
For one thing, I find this hypocritical since having watched the show for years I know she often pushes back on Cenk when he goes too far on the intelligence of MAGA voters (and I also agree with her on this).
But what bothered me most about this segment was that Anna kept saying “I don’t know whether or not it’s a tiny minority who think this way” (paraphrase). If she didn’t have this information, maybe it wasn’t worthy of being the feature topic of the show, suggesting that this is the most important thing in the news cycle. My guess would be that this is a minority view on the Left so while it shouldn’t be ignored I don’t think it should be elevated to this extent either.
And one final point, Ana claims those voicing their opinions at the council meetings are “providing fodder for the right”, which is true, but I also think her segment does that because it would not be difficult for someone to either clip to make it look like TYT agrees with them, or at least highlight the left fighting among themselves.
To summarize, I love the show, I love both Cenk and Ana as well as all the crew, it’s just for this one segment I felt I had to push back a bit. Agree with the point, just not the framing. Keep up the otherwise excellent work guys!
Following the disgusting and senseless actions of Hamas we are now in yet another time of war involving Israel.
But it’s not merely the reports on the atrocities that instigated this latest crisis that we need to discuss. It’s also the actual reporting of it. Just a couple of weeks ago my wife told me she wanted to watch the movie 1984 with John Hurt and Richard Burton. And while the term “Orwellian” might be overused these days, it certainly has to be said that large portions of the mainstream media have reverted to 1984-style propaganda from the moment news of the (again, reprehensible just in case it isn’t clear how I feel) Hamas action broke.
I could go on about my feelings on this matter but the purpose of this post is to share some media which has been produced by people who understand the situation much more than I do yet find themselves able to approach it with a holistic view rather than a “we stand squarely behind Israel no matter what, and anyone who doesn’t totally agree with us is an anti-Semite” one.
So here they are, I hope you either have the time to watch/listen or at least have been able to find similar open-minded discussions and presentations out there.
Apologies for not posting for so long, I could literally produce multiple posts every single day but most of my online time has to be taken up with rugby, especially now. I’m hoping to start a TikTok account for this site soon. JLP
1. POD SAVE THE WORLD
First we have a podcast from Pod Save The World, an excellent production featuring Tommy Veitor (of parent show Pod Save America) and Ben Rhodes (who worked with the US State Department under President Obama) which generally talks about world news from a US perspective, which some may see as a contradiction as the vast majority of the population is definitely ignorant of anything to do with global politics. They normally have a show during the week but they got together for this special one immediately after the news broke, and this is why I appreciate their extremely balanced view which pointed out the actions of the Netanyahu government as well.
2. THE YOUNG TURKS
Next up we have The Young Turks, generally hosted by Cenk Uygur and Anna Kasparian, but for their first show after the Hamas attack, Anna gave up her seat to occasional guest Ben Gleib, and Israeli-American comedian who is always promoting Progressive values, a fact proven by his very existence as a TYT host. But with a lot of his family members living in Israel and some directly affected by the Hamas attack, he is of course extremely well placed to offer that perspective.
So for this protracted debate, which I would recommend you watch in its entirety, we not only have the standard “anti-Occupation” viewpoint offered by Cenk, but it also comes with strong rebuttals from someone speaking for Israeli citizens in the aftermath of a horrific atrocity.
Unfortunately the video is age-restricted so I can’t share it directly to the page, so instead I will add the link below.
Even with the terrible nature of a story like this, it is actually possible to turn to comedy for both solace and, most crucially, information.
This clip may not be a current one from The Daily Show (it first aired in 2014), but it is still perfect for illustrating just how polarized the media landscape becomes whenever Palestine is in the news.
Rachel Maddow has been on hiatus for quite a while now, working on other projects which is a good thing for her because while her 5-nights-a-week MSNBC show is must watch TV, the “corporate Democrat” nature of the network clearly holds her back.
What makes her presentations so compelling, for me anyway, is that whatever the topical news subject might be covering, she not only goes back several steps in the timeline while researching it, she also seems to bring you through her own process of learning as well. So while she might open her show talking about something like the presidency of Boris Yelstin, her verbal corkboard shows takes you from there to the Q Anon conspiracy.
But far be it from me to provide anything else that might act as a “spoiler” for the classic Maddow experience contained within the following two videos, all that is left is for me to strongly recommend just watch them, enjoy and learn. JLP
The current crisis between the US and Iran was created by Trump so no matter what he does about it, the whole situation was totally unnecessary and it’s clear that his is in way over his head when it comes to foreign policy.
Article by Makini Brice in Reuters.com on Monday, June 24, 2019
Trump made the comments amid an escalation in tensions with Iran, as Washington has blamed Tehran for attacks on two oil tankers
I’m certainly not going to pretend to be anything of a foreign policy expert, but the situation regarding Iran and it’s capacity to make nuclear weapons appears to be very simple.
Few agreements are perfect, even fewer international treaties are. This is because thrashing them out involves compromise.
Whether or not Trump appreciates this, his viewpoint has always been that the JPCOA, negotiated by Obama and the international community was a ‘disaster’, mostly because he doesn’t trust them to hold up their side of the bargain.
So he pulled the US out of the agreement and increased sanctions not only on Iran, but also on anyone doing business with them, yet all the while still holding them to their side of the agreement he ripped up???
Before any of the events of the past week, the situation was already absurd, all due to Trump’s own actions.
Now as he makes the sanctions even tighter, it comes at no surprise that the Iranian equivalent of John Bolton is going to have an itchy trigger finger and thus we have seen an attack on a Japanese vessel as well as the shooting down of an unmanned US drone.
Now we’re expected to think the POTUS is some kind of hero because he pulls out of planned retaliation at the last minute??? Then he tells Chuck Todd that the only thing he wants from Iran is ‘No Nuclear Weapons’ only to add ‘Stop terror campaigns’ in a tweet a couple of days later?
Now a whole week after the attack on the Japanese vessel all of a sudden he’s whining about having to protect the shipping lanes????
I know I’m no expert on foreign policy, but I didn’t seek election and I certainly didn’t do so by telling everyone I could make the situation better. He has made it abundantly clear that he hasn’t a clue.
Despite being a congresswoman for just a few months, both major US political parties are pushing a narrative that Representative Ilhan Omar from Minnesota is unworthy of her position.
“You have to wonder if she is an American first”
Brian Kilmeade, Fox News
I’m sharing this Young Turks video not to highlight the actions of Fox News, more to point out that it is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to elite opposition to Congresswoman Omar.
Nobody who has watched Fox News with a critical eye will be surprised by the blatant spin presented in the above video – Omar’s words are taken wildly out of context.
The Washington Post also did a good job in this video putting her words into the proper context…
But Rupert Murdoch’s right wing spin factory is not the only source of this misrepresentation, and her statement referenced here is far from the only example.
She was recently attacked for remarks she made that referenced AIPAC, a powerful lobby group that represents the Jewish-American community.
Again, whatever side of the issue you might be on, we have to wonder why her words were so blatantly taken out of context, not only by Fox News and Republican politicians, but also by the leadership of the Democrat Party and most significantly, the mainstream media.
It’s not as though the CNNs and MSNBCs are normally shy when it comes to playing clips of quotes when it suits them. For example, how many times has Trump’s infamous ‘grab them by the pussy’ line been given airtime? Seems to be at least once or twice a week even now.
Yet Congresswoman Omar’s quote, in which she clearly referred to herself when the entire passage is taken in context, was frequently branded as ‘Anti Semitic’ on political panels without her actual statement being played.
It took a comedienne to do what the broadcasters couldn’t…
Why the widespread revulsion against Omar?
Is it because she is Muslim? Is it because the Washington establishment is genuinely concerned that she does not put ‘America first’? Is it because they really do believe she is anti-Semitic?
None of the above, as far as I’m concerned. I believe the push against is all about one of her first appearances on the House Foreign Relations Committee.
One of the principle consequences of the 2018 Midterms was that although the House was won back by the Democrats, the Progressive caucus was so strong that Nancy Pelosi had to make several concessions to guarantee that she returned to the Speaker role.
Among those concessions was the placement of prominent Progressives on key House committees like Intelligence, Judiciary, Ways and Means and in Omar’s case, Foreign Relations.
When she had one of her first opportunities to ask questions at a hearing, it was to none other than Elliott Abrams, who was involved in many questionable foreign incursions by the US in the past, and has now been appointed as President Trump’s ‘special envoy’ for Venezuela.
OMAR: On February 8, 1982, you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about U.S. policy in El Salvador. In that hearing, you dismissed as communist propaganda reports about the massacre at El Mozote in which more than 800 civilians, including children as young as 2 years old, were brutally murdered by U.S.-trained troops. During that massacre, some of those troops bragged about raping a 12-year-old girl, girls, before they killed them. You later said that the U.S. policy in El Salvador was a “fabulous achievement.” Yes or no, do you still think so?
I haven’t taken the time to check all of the congressional records since 1982 (or mainstream media interviews for that matter) but I’ll bet anything that Abrams hasn’t asked a question like this publicly in that time.
That is why Omar is being so blatantly smeared; the ‘Military Industrial Complex’, a major donor for prominent politicians from both parties, do not want questions like that asked in a public forum. In fact, the President himself gave the game away in one of his attacks on her “She should resign from Congress, or at least from the committee.” (paraphrase).
Just to be clear, I’m not 100% aware of Omar’s politics, but when anyone is taken so wildly out of context it needs to be pointed out.
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides. It’s been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. This has been going on for a long, long time.”
Before I start on the theme of this article, have you ever seen a US president more obsessed with his predecessor? It has gotten to a stage where he just throws his name into his statements without any real context.
Anyway…you have no doubt read volumes on what happened in Charlottesville and it is not my wish to delve too much further into the horrific events, at least not here.
What I want to point out is something I feel is crucial for the progressive platform to gain more followers, and it is a very simple one.
Rumour has it that human civilisation once believed premises like the earth being the centre of the universe, or at other times that it was a flat plain as opposed to a spherical planet. Maybe such misconceptions don’t effect people’s everyday life, but then again it’s hard to have a philosophical grasp on existence when you don’t even have the fundamentals correct.
So what I’d like to challenge is the way we label political ideologies as ‘left’ and ‘right’, because it suggests some kind of balance between the two. On the most basic level, what we call the left represents a society that is fair to everyone while the right does not.
But to properly understand where the conflict comes from you first must appreciate how it started. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, there must have existed a time when the human race had no elitism. Then as it became clear that certain resources were more valuable than others, some people took control of them and were selective about those with whom they were shared.
Over time those who had control over the resources got better and better at holding on to that power. Countries with tyrannical leaders simply run roughshod over their opposition, while those which claim to be democracies use a variety of tools to make sure elections go the way of the ruling classes.
Donald Trump became president on the back of one of these tools, ie supporting a specific group of voters he felt could help get him elected; in this case middle to lower class white men who felt that the civil rights movement had somehow discriminated against them.
Because this movement provided votes for the Republican party, it is considered to be on the ‘right’. And because the obvious racist and fascist leanings of this movement, it has become fashionable to label them as ‘alt-right’. Even with this distinction though, the fact that it is called any kind of ‘right’ seems to lend it equal status to whatever is called the ‘left’.
As the mainstream media fully supports the left-right paradigm, the President can claim, however wrongly, that he is being fair to ‘all sides’.
What we who have been shoved on the ‘left’ of this pseudo-spectrum must do is renounce it. A society that purports to be fair to all citizens is not half the argument. It is the only one. Of course we won’t all agree on how it is to be achieved, but given we believe in fairness, chances are the discussions are going to be devoid of such words as ‘fire and fury’.
Anyone who feels they have to ‘tone down’ their views to somehow ‘be fair’ and ‘not exclude the conservative opinion’ is basically validating the very argument that conservatives want.
The white men who marched on Charlottesville are bigots. Nothing they feel was ‘taken from them’ was really theirs in the first place. To offer them any sense of legitimacy is not being fair, it’s not being balanced. It is turning back the clock on American society to a time when the ruling classes needed only the crudest, most basic tools to hold on to power, as opposed to the more intricate ones they use today.
Progressives need to stop allowing themselves to be defined by a scale that doesn’t really exist.
First Person Plural 