“MPs warn that restrictions on buildings and water causing ‘very real suffering, often without real security justification.’ … In a report on the UK’s development work in the occupied territories (OPTs), the international development committee (IDC) argues that Israel’s policies – which include restrictions on building, access to water, and 3G and 4G for Palestinian mobile providers – are proving seriously counterproductive.
Members of the committee said they had been shocked by what they had seen during a visit in March. ‘We saw a country whose people have known immense suffering now imposing conditions on their Palestinian neighbours which cause a different but very real suffering and often without real security justification,’ says the report.
‘We saw Israel taking a range of actions that hinder Palestinian economic development and must, at the very least, cause deep resentment on the Palestinian side, even amongst the most moderate and pragmatic people, and so will actually worsen Israel’s own security.’ “
-->The NY Times doesn’t print articles that reveal too much about Israel’s intentions. The worst The NY Times has printed about the West Bank recently is Jodi Rudoren’s admission that, “Israel’s occupation of the West Bank hardly made it seem like paradise.” For the immediate bad news about how many civilians Israel slaughtered in Gaza, our newspaper of record prefers an intellectual debate on numbers with headlines like, “Civilian or Not? New Fight in Tallying the Dead in Gaza.” Anything to obscure the genocide.
“The New York Times’ reporting on Israel’s latest assault on Gaza has been a rollercoaster. Unfortunately the high points have been few, short and quickly followed by dizzying and prolonged plunges back into a morass of lazy, credulous recitations of Israeli government talking points, and efforts to portray balance and symmetry in a dramatically unbalanced situation, all permeated by an absence of skepticism and critical analysis, and a failure to explain context. Though Israel has slaughtered over 1000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza and only three civilians have been killed in Israel, in The Times’ upside down world, every Palestinian weapon is a major threat, while Israeli weapons are either defensive or non-existent.
As a result, a few days of strong, urgent reporting by Anne Barnard and Tyler Hicks on the ground in Gaza have been overwhelmed by embarrassing headlines, false equivalencies, and a seemingly unembarrassed willingness to promote Israeli perspectives no matter how obviously outrageous they might be. …
At it’s worst The Times’ reporting on this crisis has reminded some readers of Judy Miller’s and Michael Gordon’s enthusiastic shilling for the US attack on Iraq. There is so much that could be written about these failures, but I’ll focus on a few highlights – The Times’ failure to examine Hamas’ involvement in kidnappings or the manipulation of information about Israeli teens’ deaths, The Times’ failure to explain basic context about Gaza, Times’ explainers that grossly distort reality, and the papers’ hyping of Palestinian military capacity, in contrast to the invisibility of Israel’s massive arsenal.”
-->Check out Mondoweiss for a more honest intellectual debate about the slaughter in Gaza. This blog’s goal is to “publish important developments touching on Israel/Palestine, the American Jewish community and the shifting debate over US foreign policy in a timely fashion.” It publishes everything The NY Times does not.
“One reason Congress is so pro-Israel? Fundraising. …
To anyone who's familiar with Democratic Party fundraising — particularly for non-incumbent underdogs, who typically have trouble raising money — this won't be too surprising (leaked memo states that saying the right things about Israel will net Michelle Nunn $250,000 for her upcoming campaign in Georgia).
Jewish donors are very important to Democratic Party finances, some of these donors have strongly held hawkish views on Israel, and the financial clout of AIPAC is the stuff of legend. At the same time, talk of rich Jews throwing their financial muscle around to influence policy in favor of Israel touches far too many anti-semitic tropes to be regularly mentioned in political discourse. But the concrete world of political fundraising doesn't leave a ton of time for beating around the bush, so we get a little window here into how it looks to the finance people: if Michelle Nunn wants to maximize her donations, she needs to take the right stance.”
-->Would The NY Times ever touch a story like this? The story reveals not only how corrupt our political process is, but also how billionaire Zionists pay for Congressional support of Israel.