web analytics
July 24, 2014 / 26 Tammuz, 5774
Israel at War: Operation Protective Edge
 
 
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘CBS’

Netanyahu Warns Americans ‘Iranian ICBMs Would Be Able to Hit US’

Thursday, October 3rd, 2013

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu focused the Iranian nuclear threat on the United States Thursday, telling Americans through a CBS interview that Iran is developing Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) to threaten them.

“The American intelligence knows as well as we do that Iran is developing ICBMs not to reach Israel. They want to reach well beyond,” he said on the network’s “This Morning” program. “They’re not developing those ICBMs for us. They can reach us with what they have. It’s for you.”

The networked quoted a senior Israeli security official as saying that the threat of Iranian ICBMs is a “few years” away.

Rating the Major US Networks on Gaza

Wednesday, November 21st, 2012

Whenever Jews are in the news in a major way (usually that involves Israel) I try and watch all 3 major broadcast network reports to see if there if there is any bias in their reporting.

The good news is that both CBS and NBC have done a pretty good job of reporting the news objectively. They focused on the suffering on both sides and – without saying so directly – seemed to show that fault for all this lies almost exclusively with Hamas.

Of the 3 networks, I think CBS had the most comprehensive and fair coverage of all.

Two things stand out. One of them made me tear – as scenes like these always do. It was on a CBS segment that focused on some young Israeli soliders waiting on the front lines ready to invade Gaza if given the order to do so. These were mostly Frum kids… wearing Kipot Seruga. The camera crew recorded them with Tefflin on their heads… some of them wearing Taleisim -I assume the married ones. This video was obviously taken during Shachris.

The tears in my eyes were there for two reasons. One was the pride I had in these young men for giving their all for their country and their countrymen. They seemed unafraid and brave… and yet they must be scared at the possible consequences of an invasion. That these young men are both observant and so brave – willing to put their lives on the line is a Kiddush HaShem of major proportions.

The second reason I teared is that I do not want to see any bloodshed. I do not want to see one hair on the head of any single one of these brave young men harmed! An invasion makes that very unlikely. May God protect them.

Back to the networks. Of the 3 ABC is so far the most biased. They focused almost entirely on the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza. The wreckage, the human toll, little children crying; grieving mothers and fathers; funerals with angry mobs carrying little caskets; and the overall increased anger of the Gaza populace telling reporters ‘why’ Israel was the guilty party here. No counter reporting about that from Israel’s point of view.They keep repeating the death toll in Gaza pointing out time and again that that Israel has killed over 100 Palestinians – many of them women and children. While Israel has lost “only” 3 people. They keep showing grieving Palestinian relatives of those killed. Ant they do so without any context. Making it seem like Israel attack in Gaza is state sponsored terrorism. To the extent that they do any reporting about Israeli context at all is prefaced by “Israel claims…” as though they are hardly true… but just claims.

They then say things like Israel’s attacks are counterproductive in that they are only turning the Arab Street against them. As if they were pour best friends until now! In other words, they are parroting and thereby corroborating the Palestinian narrative from Gaza.

It is almost as if the producers of these ABC news segments were Palestinian!

Contrast that with CBS who managed to have reporter Clarissa Ward, at a Hamas news conference in Egypt. She asked Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal point blank if they wanted peace with Israel? His answer: God-willing the American people will wake up and stand with 350 million Arabs rather than to continue to support Israel. Serious reporting. Thee clip can be seen below.

You did not see anything like that on ABC. In fact on Good Morning America it was all laughter and smiles as all the hosts were “yucking it up”- joking with one another right after reporting on all the violence in that area. Missiles flying in all directions; people in imminent danger of being killed or maimed – including their own reporters – and they act as though they just reported who won the local chili cook-off contest. What an embarrassment for them. Have they no shame?! I know that show is all about ‘Happy Talk” but give me a break. There is a time to be happy and a time to be somber. Get a clue – ABC!

Visit Emes Ve-Emunah.

Thousands Flood CBS Emails Protesting Anti-Israel ’60 Minutes’ Story

Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

Thousands of Christian and Jewish supporters of Israel have bombarded CBS executives with complaints about a “60 Minutes” segment that blamed Israel for the exodus of Christians from the West Bank and Jerusalem (See Video: A Well Crafted Piece of Propaganda Packed with Intentional Lies, Is It Sunday Already?).

In the segment that aired Sunday, correspondent Bob Simon, Palestinian Christian leaders and others blame Israel and the settlements for Christians leaving cities such as Bethlehem and  Jerusalem.

The Jewish Federations of North America and Christians United For Israel asked their members to send messages to CBS executives to complain about the segment. JFNA’s action alert, sent before the segment aired, read: “We hope that CBS will be flooded with responses through their inboxes, Facebook, Twitter and mail after the program to express discontent if it is as biased as we anticipate.”

CUFI told its supporters in a Twitter message Monday that “Sunday night ’60 Minutes’ blamed Israel for Christian flight from the Middle East. Join me in telling them the truth.” CUFI tweeted later in the day that more than 22,000 supporters had contacted “60 Minutes” over the segment.

In the segment, Simon says that “Palestinian Christians, once a powerful minority, are becoming the invisible people, squeezed between a growing Muslim majority and burgeoning Israeli settlements. Israel has occupied the West Bank for 45 years.”

The segment quoted Israeli journalist Ari Shavit as saying that “Israel is not persecuting Christians as Christians. The Christians in the Holy Land suffer from Israeli policies that are a result of the overall tragic situation. And this, of course, has consequences for everybody.”

Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren is quoted as saying that Christians are leaving the West Bank due to Islamic extremism. The segment takes Oren to task for calling Jeff Fager, the head of CBS News and executive producer of “60 Minutes,” before the segment ran to make sure that the story would not be a “hatchet job.”

“It seemed to me outrageous. Completely incomprehensible that at a time when these communities, Christian communities throughout the Middle East, are being oppressed and massacred, when churches are being burnt, when one of the great stories in history is unfolding,” that ’60 Minutes’ would focus on Christians in Israel,” Oren told Simon in the segment.

Sigourney Weaver, Alan Rickman, Noah Robbins at the Museum of Jewish Heritage April 3

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012

The Flea Theater will present a reading of “The Vandal” by Hamish Linklate (best known as Matthew in the CBS sitcom The New Adventures of Old Christine) on April 3 at the Museum of Jewish Heritage, with Golden Globe winners Sigourney Weaver and Alan Rickman and Outer Critics Circle nominee Noah Robbins.

“The Vandal” is set on a frozen night in Kingston, New York, where a woman (Weaver) who’s lost everything tags her name on Death’s door.

Linklater told Playbill magazine that “the play is about how we live and the stories we tell ourselves when we’re haunted by the people we’ve loved and lost.”

For more information visit www.theflea.org.

Media Distorts Former Mossad Head’s 60 Minutes Interview on Iran

Friday, March 9th, 2012

When even the very outfit that conducted the interview with Meir Dagan misrepresents what the man actually said, it provides an opportunity to identify agenda driven reporting.

Here’s the CBS News headline for their promo of the Sunday night 60 Minutes interview with Dagan:

Ex-Israeli spy chief: Bombing Iran a stupid idea

Now, to be fair, Dagan has been a cool voice on the issue of whether or not Israel should bomb Iran’s nukes, and so it is tempting for some to see his call for Israel’s leaders to count to 30 before speaking, as a statement of support for Obama’s view of diplomacy before war.

On January, 2011, Dagan, who was retiring from his post as Mossad chief, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that he did not believe Iran would have nuclear capability before 2015.

And so, in Lesley Stahl’s interview with Meir Dagan, part of next Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” she brings up the quote in which he supposedly said that bombing Iran now is “the stupidest idea” he’d ever heard.

Except that’s not exactly what he said. A May 8, 2011 NY Times article reports: “Israel’s former intelligence chief has said that a strike on Iran’s nuclear installations would be ‘a stupid idea,’ adding that military action might not achieve all of its goals and could lead to a long war.”

And the same article continues with a quote from Dagan, speaking at a conference of senior public servants, saying that he declared that “Iran must not be allowed to produce nuclear weapons,” and advocated “covert means of setting back the Iranian program.”

Indeed, this is how Dagan responds to Stahl’s question regarding the “stupidest idea”:

Dagan: An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.

In fact, the same promo page on CBS News confirms:

Dagan also told Stahl he thinks it’s a mistake generally to make this situation an Israeli-Iranian issue. It should be an international issue. Somehow the Saudis should be encouraged to speak up and pressure the United States. And what he would really like to happen is that Israel sits back, and the Americans do it for the Israelis. It would then be internationalized. He knows that Israel will be attacked whoever does it, but they’ll be attacked less and what he’s most worried about is the retaliation.

In other words, Dagan does not think attacking Iran today is necessarily a bad idea, if the threat is high enough, he only thinks it’s a bad idea for Israel to do it – because a coalition attack on Iran would achieve far superior results.

And we’re not told what Dagan thinks should happen if no one else is willing to join Israel or fight in its stead, while Iran completes its nuclear program and starts blowing up atomic mushrooms in the Dasht-e Kavir desert. Does he think Israel should be sitting on her hands under those circumstances? Somehow I doubt it.

But Meir Dagan’s flare and vigor, colorful celebrity that he is, are being exploited by some media outlets to distort his quite carefully expressed message, creating the impression that he actually supports the Obama Administration’s reluctance to attack Iran.

Did you expect me to start with an Ha’aretz headline? I shan’t disappoint you:

WATCH: Former head of Israeli Mossad: Now is not the time to attack Iran

Dagan agrees with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and President Obama that there is still time to wait before dire actions need to be taken.

Except, at least in the promo and press release, Dagan never says he agrees with Clinton and Obama, and furthermore when Stahl says there is “a lot” of time, he emphatically corrects her and removes the words “a lot” from her sentence, and only says there is still “more time”, presumably meaning we haven’t reached zero-hour yet, but we’re close.

Only at the very bottom of the page Ha’aretz acquiesces that Dagan may not be against bombing Iran after all:

During the interview Stahl suggested that it seemed he was advocating Israel wait and have the U.S. attack Iran’s nuclear sites. Dagan replied: “If I prefer that someone will do it, I always prefer that Americans will do it,” he says.

How many Internet users scroll all the way to the bottom of an article? Only the ones with nothing better to do, like yours truly. But for all intents and purposes, it has now been established that Meir Dagan is against bombing Iran, because it’s stupid. They say so, on the Internet.

And that perhaps is Dagan’s real message, he wants the US and/or an international coalition to stop Iran, including bombing if it need be. Not Israel.

CBS also seems to be playing up Dagan’s analysis of Iran and Ahmadinejad’s sanity and rationality – seemingly implying that tried and true Cold War rules could apply here too.

The regime in Iran is a very rational one,” says the former top Israeli spymaster.  And President Ahmadinejad?  “The answer is yes,” he replies. “Not exactly our rational, but I think he is rational,” Dagan tells Stahl.

Deaf And Dumb

Wednesday, May 18th, 2011

I’ve often written and said that we are living in remarkable but dangerous times in which we can hear (provided we know how to listen) the footsteps of the Messiah. Ours, however, is a generation that has difficulty hearing.

We are saturated with constant noise, not only from rapidly developing world events but also from our own tumultuous, seductive lifestyles – lifestyles that are conducive to self-absorption and deafness.

You might, of course, wonder at the appropriateness of the word “deafness.” Isn’t that a bit extreme? Actually, if there were a stronger expression, I would resort to that. Yes, our generation has become deaf – no matter how thunderous the call of Hashem.

But still you might ask, Is our generation really so much different from those that preceded us? To be sure, in every generation we’ve had problems hearing that “still small voice” that comes in many shapes and forms. But in our generation that blockage has become even more acute. There are so many sounds that divert us from hearing.

Nowadays, it is rare to see anyone take even a moment to think. There was a time when people took walks for contemplation or secluded themselves to review their lives. Today, this hardly (if ever) occurs. Today, when you see people walking in the street they are almost always involved in some activity, be it talking on their cell phones, text messaging, scrolling through e-mail on their Blackberry, or listening to their iPod. And should they steal some moments to seclude themselves, there are other diversions vying for their attention – the Internet, TV, video games, etc.

In the interim, time relentlessly passes – and with every moment events unfold that we neither hear nor see. Not only have we lost our ability to hear, we have lost our ability to talk, to hold a conversation. People communicate through e-mail, texting or Twitter. This has become so prevalent that children no longer speak with parents, couples no longer speak with each other. They find it much easier to text or resort to other technological means of communication, because by doing so they don’t have to hear a response, another voice that might question or negate their message. Nor are they obliged to hear expressions of love that might make them feel guilty or indebted.

Regardless of our reaction (or non-reaction), the messages continue and the sounds become louder, demanding a response. But how can we respond if we no longer know how to hear? Deaf, dumb, and blind, we continue to march on to the sound of our own music and congratulate ourselves on our open-mindedness and ready acceptance of all lifestyles.

So it is that we never learn. Even the most world-shaking events go unheeded. Neither the Holocaust nor the rebirth of Israel after two thousand years of exile has made us stop and rethink our lives.

I could go through a number of other examples, but I’ll skip to 9/11 – a tragedy that spoke thunderously to everyone in our country. Remarkably, even then we continued to remain deaf, and chose to view its message through a politically correct lens.

We have become so inured that we see nothing unusual in the constant escalation of natural disasters – tsunamis, floods, tornados, earthquakes, nuclear spills, etc. Nor do we see anything remarkable about dead birds falling from the skies or dead fish washing ashore in uncountable numbers. Nor did we wake up when financial disaster overtook us. Overnight, we witnessed the collapse of giant corporations and industries, the meltdown of Wall Street and the devaluation of the dollar, which we once believed to be invincible.

Our inability to hear rendered us deaf and blind to the messages behind the toppling of powerful governments that for years were controlled by dictators who ruled with iron fists. We delude ourselves into believing that what we are witnessing is the dawn of freedom, peace and democracy in the dark world of the Middle East. We refuse to consider that the mobs are the precursors of even more tyrannical dictatorships.

Look at Egypt. In our blindness and deafness we refused to pay heed to the heinous shouts of “Jew! Jew” as CBS correspondent Lara Logan was barbarously attacked by the mob in the streets (though Logan is in fact not a Jew).

Nor has the world paid heed to the destruction of churches and the killing of Christians. Yes, all this is unfolding in the “new”Egypt, as the world responds with a deafening silence. Why? We dismiss that question as well. We have our own problems. We can’t really get involved in world events. It won’t help anyway, so the call continues to be sounded and we continue to remain blind, dumb and deaf.

(To Be Continued)

Osama’s Controversial Aftermath

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

It’s inevitable that the joy and national unity over the killing of that monster bin Laden would cool. Already we’re debating the journalistic and political ramifications. President Obama told CBS he wouldn’t “spike the football” by releasing photos proving Osama is dead.

I agree with the president, as much as that pains my friend Sean Hannity and other conservatives (and non-conservatives like Juan Williams). Some argue that it will put to rest any conspiracy theories that this is but a hoax. No, it won’t.

Let’s go back to the American killing of Saddam Hussein’s sons Uday and Qusay in 2003. To deal with the paranoia and disbelief of Iraqis, the military allowed access to the bodies – after they did facial reconstructions to make the sons look more like they did before their faces were shot off.

Guess what? None of that helped with many Iraqis, who continued to express skepticism. The failure of the Hussein sons to reappear (and now Osama) should be proof for the doubters, but not so for fanatics. Before he had birthers; now we’ll have deathers.

Is the inherent risk of greater violence by the release of the pictures worth it? Reuters gained access to some grisly pictures of dead men at Osama’s compound. I look at them and see pictures of dead killers, murderers of innocent men, women and children – and I’m glad they’re dead. Many millions of Muslims will see pictures of what appear to be defenseless, innocent men – and will be outraged. Perception is everything. Why fuel it?

Why not just say – proclaim – Osama bin Laden’s dead, and we’re happy with the result? On the broader question, we can ask our media to please develop a consistent standard for these things. Why aren’t they going nuclear against Obama’s (correct) decision? Whatever happened to their “right to know”?

On August 4, 2005, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press proclaimed that a coalition of 14 media organizations and public interest groups they organized – including CBS, NBC, and The New York Times – had filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the ACLU in U.S. District Court in New York urging the release of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos.

The RCFP also filed an amicus brief for the release of detainee-abuse photos in prisons other than Abu Ghraib, which the Obama administration agreed to release in April 2009.

“The government has taken the position in this case that the more outrageous the behavior exhibited by American troops, the less the public has a right to know about it,” complained RCFP executive director Lucy Dalglish.

So far, in the days since the White House announced it would not release the Osama photos, there’s been no objection from the RCFP.

Liberal journalists have favored gruesome images when the dead are American troops. In both wars with Iraq, in 1991 and in 2003, former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite insisted it was terrible (even “criminal”) that “we’re still not seeing the bloodletting.”

In 2006, CNN chose to show video, apparently made by Iraqi insurgents, of American soldiers being shot by a sniper. I don’t recall the liberal journalists or Senator Barack Obama raising objections to that.

Under the liberal standard here, it seems political: the “right to know” matches neatly with the need to embarrass (or “hold accountable”) the Bush administration. Embarrassment or accountability isn’t so urgent at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in the Osama case.

Team Obama also faces a curious controversy over Osama’s quick burial at sea, achieved so as to satisfy Muslim religious traditions. Once again, unlike many conservatives, I didn’t have an early objection to showing that respect – not to Osama, but to the faith he supposedly upheld. A quick glance at American military procedures for the burial of internees suggests a burial according to the religious rites of the deceased. That’s simple American decency.

But if it will help, upset conservatives can go to al-Jazeera and discover they’ve found Muslims who think the burial at sea was horrendous. Yahya Hendi, Muslim chaplain of Georgetown University, called the sea burial an “absolute violation” of Islamic traditions, and an unwise decision that (naturally) mars America’s image.

“Islamic law traditionally allows disposing of a corpse at sea only if the person dies on board ship and there is no possibility of getting the body to dry land before it decomposes,” added Marion Katz, professor of “Islamic law, gender and ritual” at New York University.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/osamas-controversial-aftermath/2011/05/11/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: