New York Times reporter calls Zionist terrorism 'romantic'

New York Times reporter calls Zionist terrorism 'romantic'

rawstory.com

A little-noticed comment in a New York Times interview with Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni has critics arguing that it shows the media has a "double standard" when it comes to terrorism.

In an interview published Tuesday, Livni, the leader of Israel's centrist Kadima party, boasted that her parents, both members of the Zionist militant group Irgun in the 1940s, were the first couple to be married in the newly-formed state of Israel.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Israeli - Palestinian conflict by the numbers (The numbers don't lie)
As Israel kills and maims, outrage is directed at Helen Thomas (orchestrated by Ari Fleischer)

"Both of them were in the Irgun," Livni said. "They were freedom fighters, and they met while boarding a British train. When the British Mandate was here, they robbed a train to get the money in order to buy weapons."

To which New York Times reporter Deborah Solomon responded: "It was a more romantic era."

How on earth could Deborah Solomon claim that the actions of Irgun, a militant Zionist terror group of the 20th century, were "romantic", yet turn around and blast the actions of Palestinians for their actions? This is just another blatant example of the one sided arguments made in favor of Israel. The New York Times is one of the worst, as their reporters propagate the lies of Zionism to the extreme.

In fact, how can Tzipi Livni consider the members of that terror organization as "freedom fighters" and Deborah Solomon not challenge that assertion? Could it be because of their obvious and blatant bias to the Zionist agenda, at everyone else's expense?

For those that don't know, Irgun was a terrorist organization, dedicated to the creation of Israel in the mid 20th century. They were responsible for bombings, including the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 91 innocent people, including British and American citizens.

Upon Israel's creation, Irgun was folded into the IDF and their political wing turned into the Likud party, now headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, the current Prime Minister of Israel. Israel's current government has roots to an undebated terrorist organization, but then again the American media would never hint to such blasphemy.

This latest incident is just but one example of the American MSM's obvious biases towards the Zionist agenda, even while innocent women and children are dying. It is because of this biasness and out-right one-sided favoritism that Americans stay completely ignorant of what's going on and why. The New York Times is an enemy of freedom, liberty and the American people, opting instead to side itself with evil and interests that go against the very idea of America.

--airspoon





rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This latest incident is just but one example of the American MSM's obvious biases towards the Zionist agenda

No suprise since they own the media.

What can a man do !

Quite a lot and start by not paying to view hollywood films and pointing out all the news as not shown by CNN/BBC

Zionist attack and it's all for peace, not oil, not banking but for peace and anyone that fights back is a coward and terrorists according to the BBC.

Any war would quickly end if the zionists had to pay with there own blood instead of bribing politicains to spill they blood of our young but thats what you get when you own the IMF.

To Thrill A Mockingbird

Originally posted by airspoon
The New York Times is an enemy of freedom, liberty and the American people, opting instead to side itself with evil and interests that go against the very idea of America.

On the other hand, maybe they're just doing their patriotic duty.

reply to post by airspoon


It is her job to twist/turn and make everything sound, and feel alright.

Second line.

I just don't see how most Americans don't notice this kind of thing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. I'm one of "those" who whole heartedly believe that if Americans knew the truth, we wouldn't allow our government to finance and support what's going on, or at least we would make a stink about it, causing our government to squirm a little.

--airspoon

And the majority of americans never realise they are Israel's B&*tch. And Americian youth are their cannon fodder.

All in the cause of the mighty dollar. your government sold out the american people years ago. Probably under the treat of asasination from israel. Only takes the death of a few presidents (from any country) to convince them.

Your only-hope are the teaparties and the states taking back control from the federal govt. or better yet, remove all power from the federal government.

a start would be haviing NO dual-citizens in ANY government agency/dept, fromk the top down. And also full disclosure on all lobbying.

reply to post by airspoon


€If BP spends 60 million for PR in regards to this disaster, imagine how much the American government spends on PR to hide and twist the facts and keep the American people hypnotized.

reply to post by airspoon


Welcome to history. history repeats with different players.

That's why neither Palestine nor Israel is innocent. That's why they're booth bloody barbarians that I really could not care less about who wins.


Taking sides or interacting in that region is like drinking poison. Better to just walk away.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Gorman91]

There is not a damn thing romantic about genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Only a psycopath would find such things romantic..

You know, I read this on RawStory early this morning. Then read it again and thought about it and said, huh?

It wasn't until I went here Questions For, a collection of Deborah Solomon interviews, and started reading from the top, from Livni's interview on (here) that I began to understand what happened here.

I read about 20 interviews in all. (A side note here is that Livni's interview did not have the disclaimer on it saying it was condensed and edited. Most of the others I read did.)

Now it appears that these interviews are not strictly Q&A. Its seems more like a casual conversation. Like you and I might talk. Sometimes Solomon asks a question, other times she expounds on a point made by the interviewee. And I could see how, in an informal, conversational style, interview setting, the comment about an era being romantic might have come about. Solomon always ranges that way. I don't believe for a moment that that in and of itself this comment was worthy of unleashing a firestorm on this subject.

The interviews all ranged from mild to sometimes a bit caustic. But overall the tone and style remained about the same. Nothing particularly hard hitting, with the notable exception being the interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, entitled "The Feminist" (here). That one stood out with respect to Solomon's tone about Muslims.

I read a few more after that, and it was more or less the same. Another interesting thing I noticed was that Solomon always mentions or asks a question about the interviewee's mother or father, about their childhood. It seems to me it's her way of getting chummy...relating. Seems to be her style.

Okay, so now, the blogger who started all this (here), Phillip Weiss, who from what he said about her and her paper, was already keeping and eye on both the New York Times and Solomon, said that Solomon softballed questions to Livni. Maybe it wasn't her hardest interview, I'll agree, but it's still subjective and speculative.

If I were in his place, I would want to know a few things before leaping to that conclusion. Things such as this:

Where and when did this interview take place? Was it phoned in? Via e-mail? In person? In public? In private? Did they meet face to face?

How long did they have? This interview is among the shortest of all I read. It may have been rushed. Or emailed. And again, didn't have the condensed-and-edited disclaimer on it. Don't know if that means anything.

What were the parameters for the meeting? Did Livni put anything off limits or off the record?

Was Livni friendly? Cooperative? Rushed? Dismissive? And again, how was the interview done?

Did Solomon take notes by hand or tape record the interview? If she recorded it, who transcribed it? Let's just assume she approved it in it's final form.

So, finally, the interview appeared in Solomon's column "Questions For," New York Times Magazine on Sunday, June 20, 2010.

And probably without knowing the answers to any of the questions above, Weiss decides that this interview has been softballed. And, takes a relatively innocent phrase that related to a rather human and emotional segment of the interview, out of context and turns it into, "...in which she describes the days of Jewish terrorism as 'romantic,'" What she was describing was the era during which Linvi's parents fell in love.

And then from this point, with clearly preexisting bias, he gives his opinion about what she should have done in the interview. They he pulls and excerpt of a 7 year-old interview Solomon did with Noam Chomsky out to illustrate how she is so very biased that she tried to make Chomsky look crazy.

I read that interview as well, and it seems of about the same tone and style as all the others. She goes off sometimes in attempts to be hard hitting, but in my opinion, never really gets there.

An interesting side note here is that Weiss links his reader to Chomksy's page (here) and not to where it appears in Solomon's (h ere) archives. Why? Did he want his reader exposed to Chomsky's site? Or did he not want his reader's finding Solomon's? Or both?

He closes with a pithy, inflammatory comment, and we're off. The blog gets picked up and the firestorm is released yet again. Even in this thread, from the quick glance I took before departing on this endeavor.

In conclusion, just another case of giving the masses a kernel of corn, turning the heat on, and waiting for it to pop. This isn't really "news." It's opinion and opportunistic propaganda by proxy.

The very thing he accuses her of, eh?

Very interesting.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by airspoon
I just don't see how most Americans don't notice this kind of thing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. I'm one of "those" who whole heartedly believe that if Americans knew the truth, we wouldn't allow our government to finance and support what's going on, or at least we would make a stink about it, causing our government to squirm a little.

--airspoon

You don't see how? Come on, haven't you turned on the news lately? Then you have the huge fundie base that believes Israel is untouchable and you will bu cursed by God if you hurt them. It won't be until Israel finally crosses the line and attacks people who aren't doing a dang thing or even have those dreaded sticks/rods/axes people might get the general idea Israel is a wee bit screwed up.

Well America was warned:
this letter was printed by the times in a letters to the editor column

Einstein Letter Warning Of
Zionist Facism In Israel

Letters to the Editor
New York Times
December 4, 1948

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine."
...
"Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future"
www.rense.com...

scanned from the times
www.globalwebpost.com...
edit to add signatories
(signed)

Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe






[edit on 27-6-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by antonia




Isn't this what they have already been doing? I think that is Israel's "MO", to attack people who have done them no wrong at all.

--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


It's an old saying and a little cliche, but "One man's terrorrist is another man's freedom fighter..."

reply to post by ~Lucidity


What does it matter what type of interview and whether it was phoned in, emailed of face to face? Sure, then entire interview wasn't cited but only for brevity's sake and for relevance. The point is, she still said what she said and acted how she acted. This interview is just like a microcosm of the bigger picture, especially as it pertains to the New York Times.

The length of the interview and the method in which it was conducted is irrelevant as she still claimed Israeli terrorism as romantic and she still failed to question with the same vigor that is a stalwart in New York Times reporting... only when speaking about Islamic terrorism of course.

I could see a valid argument if things were taken out of context, but they certainly weren't. It was not taken out of context, rather it was condensed for relevancy.

--airspoon

99% of the American population are Zionist puppets and they don't even know it Americans are blinded by religion and ignorance.