My guest this week on Barely a Blog is Daniel Doron. Daniel, the director of the premier Israeli free-market think tank, The Israel Center for Social & Economic Progress, is also a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, where this especially probative piece first appeared.–ILANA

The Media Monopoly—Again
By Daniel Doron

A few days prior to the elections, two top Israeli journalists—known for their rare combination of intelligence, courage and integrity—threw a veritable bomb-shell into the otherwise soporific electoral debate.

To preserve the large lead that Ariel Sharon gained for his newly formed Kadima, under the leadership of the less popular Ehud Olmert, party strategists decided to keep the election campaign on a low key. Though Israel faces some life and death choices that voters should understand and sort out, Kadima strategists refused to have Olmert debate his two chief rivals, Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Labor’s Amir Peretz. They also managed to have a very supportive media keep any serious issue out of the public’s eye.

This is why the extraordinary critical two articles, one by Ari Shavit, Ha’aretz senior columnist, and the other by Guy Rolnik, Ha’aretz and the Marker economic editor, people from the left, mind you, would have created a media fire storm in any normal country. Shavit and Rolnik asserted that Netanyahu, whom the media marked as enemy of the poor and a peon of the rich, was actually the man who saved the Israeli economy from collapse and protected the poor; that he was the one who broke the major power of the rich, the bank monopoly; and that conversely, Kadima and its leader, the darlings of the media, may actually endanger Israel’s security, and corrupt its democratic system and its economy.

In “The Country Is In Our Hands,” an imaginary secret memo submitted to the 18 families that control most assets in Israel by their chief strategists, Shavit wrote:

“It was impossible to buy Netanyahu… when he dared threaten the banks, we suddenly understood that the man is not ours… therefore we made a determined strategic decision: Bibi has outlived his usefulness, Bibi must go….”
“To face the danger (emanating from Netanyahu’s reforms)… we had to form a political body that will serve us (the oligarchy) faithfully, and we had to head it by one of our own…”
“E.O. is A1… his door is always open… there is not a deal that he won’t cut… we have gained access that is comparable only to what the rich have in Latin America…”
“The new ruling party will be a most useful instrument for gaining our objectives… it will enable us to have total control of the Israeli government, of the police, the state prosecutor’s office, the treasury (and the various regulatory bodies)… Our 20th century dysfunctional democracy will be replaced by a centralized oligarchy…”

Rolnik made equally dramatic charges. In his piece “Kadima (onwards)—For The Benefit Of Our Rich Friends,” he wrote:

“Netanyahu was made to look as the elite’s man…. Political, social, and economic commentators tell us that he made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Nice story, but little relation to reality… the rich hate Bibi, they are connected to Olmert and prefer even Peretz… (Netanyahu) was the worse Minister of Finance the rich families controlling the economy ever got.”
“Netanyahu totally backed the removal of the banks from their chief source of power—their control of financial markets…”
“(Netanyahu’s) cuts (in government handouts) have saved the economy from collapse, (they have generated the brisk growth) that makes it possible for all the politicians to make promises for more handouts…”
“We know Ehud Olmert… he can be relied upon, Nochi (Dankner) relies on him, Mossie (Wertheimer) relies on him, Eitan (Raff) relies on him, they (the oligarchs) all rely on him—he will not disappoint them…”

In addition, Shavit, a fervent supporter of total withdrawal from the disputed territories, also charged that Olmert’s promise to make unilateral withdrawals without securing international backing for the total demilitarization of these territories is so irresponsible and dangerous—because it will enable Hamas to establish on the doorstep of Israel a Jihadi regime supported by Iran and Syria—that he was unfit to be Prime Minister.

Both Shavit and Rolnik are politically close to Kadima’s policy of total withdrawal from the disputed territories. However, unlike most of the media their integrity prevented them from joining the virulently anti-Netahyahu campaign which the pro unconditional withdrawal media exploited to advance its agenda; it has also prevented them from participating in the systematic cover up of Kadima’s and Labor’s shortcomings.

But it did not matter, because they were a drop in a sea of media manipulations and distortions.
The media did not even report or comment on their unusual criticism so most people were not aware of its existence.

Israel has three major TV channels, several radio stations, plus a number of very competitive newspapers. Yet the very liberal (in its own eyes) Israeli media has a united political voice and a single agenda, the promotion of a Palestinian state no matter how jingoistic, oppressive or dictatorial it is. It makes sure that no other voice is heard, and if heard, that it is discredited.

People in the media are entitled, of course, to their opinions. But it is questionable whether Israeli democracy can thrive when the media manages “to inject itself as an actor in this campaign in a manner unprecedented in Israeli electoral history” (as Yaron Dekel, senior commentator of Israel’s “public” TV channel 1, put it) and does it not only by manipulating the news but by outright lies and fabrications. In fact, it is quite likely that the media’s success in squelching a vigorous public debate on the urgent issues facing Israel is the reason for the worrisome and extremely low voter participation.

Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, is my guest today on Barely a Blog. He applies his characteristic perspicacity to the incongruity that is the Old Right’s treatment of Israel. Why the Left detests Israel is clear, but what of old-school conservatives and paleolibertarians? Robert Novak and Charlie Reese shake hands with Alexander Cockburn—elements of the American Right meet the Left—in support of their dedicated detestation of Israel. Moreover, the myth of the plucky Palestinian so dear to many on the Right is not in the conservative tradition. In propagating this myth, they resemble those that cried bitter tears (from a safe distance, of course) for the communist ANC in South Africa. And they resemble the Left and the neoconservatives who weep for the Chechens—another aggressive, terrorist people. (You’ll often hear paleoconservatives condemn the administration for leaning on, say, Vladimir Putin, but celebrate when they sunder Israel’s sovereignty.)—ILANA

Over to Professor Gottfried:

It seems to me foolish for members of the Old Right to beat up on any Israeli government, however flexible it seems to be, because they are justifiably disgusted by neoconservative bullying and duplicity. The Israelis did not create our global democratic warmongers; nor is there any reason to assume that the two hold the same views about the surrounding world.
Having just returned from a trip to Israel, I wish to point out that I met in that country lots of Asians, including workers from the Far East, and African Jews, but very few people who bear any resemblance to the editorial boards of Commentary and The Weekly Standard.
The present Israeli government is eager to give back the entire West bank, minus possibly East Jerusalem, if it can achieve a non-violent peace with the Palestinians. There are also almost a million Palestinians living within Israel proper, who enjoy much better treatment and a far higher standard of living than their Arab cousins, who already enjoy the pleasures of Arab autonomy.
I have the distinct impression that my fellow-paleos, who weep over the tyranny of the Jewish state, are really protesting another issue, the bad manners and Stalinist techniques of the neoconservative dictators of the present conservative movement. But those issues are clearly different from the ones that the anti-Israeli Right brings up in its invectives. From what I have observed, it is the cowardice and opportunism of movement conservatives, not Mr. Olmert, which are responsible for the state of the American Right.

Paleos, take the argument up with Bill Buckley, Heritage, and Bill Rusher and not the Israelis.

—Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, is my guest today on Barely a Blog. He applies his characteristic perspicacity to the incongruity that is the Old Right’s treatment of Israel. Why the Left detests Israel is clear, but what of old-school conservatives and paleolibertarians? Robert Novak and Charlie Reese shake hands with Alexander Cockburn—elements of the American Right meet the Left—in support of their dedicated detestation of Israel. Moreover, the myth of the plucky Palestinian so dear to many on the Right is not in the conservative tradition. In propagating this myth, they resemble those that cried bitter tears (from a safe distance, of course) for the communist ANC in South Africa. And they resemble the Left and the neoconservatives who weep for the Chechens—another aggressive, terrorist people. (You’ll often hear paleoconservatives condemn the administration for leaning on, say, Vladimir Putin, but celebrate when they sunder Israel’s sovereignty.)—ILANA

Over to Professor Gottfried:

It seems to me foolish for members of the Old Right to beat up on any Israeli government, however flexible it seems to be, because they are justifiably disgusted by neoconservative bullying and duplicity. The Israelis did not create our global democratic warmongers; nor is there any reason to assume that the two hold the same views about the surrounding world.
Having just returned from a trip to Israel, I wish to point out that I met in that country lots of Asians, including workers from the Far East, and African Jews, but very few people who bear any resemblance to the editorial boards of Commentary and The Weekly Standard.
The present Israeli government is eager to give back the entire West bank, minus possibly East Jerusalem, if it can achieve a non-violent peace with the Palestinians. There are also almost a million Palestinians living within Israel proper, who enjoy much better treatment and a far higher standard of living than their Arab cousins, who already enjoy the pleasures of Arab autonomy.
I have the distinct impression that my fellow-paleos, who weep over the tyranny of the Jewish state, are really protesting another issue, the bad manners and Stalinist techniques of the neoconservative dictators of the present conservative movement. But those issues are clearly different from the ones that the anti-Israeli Right brings up in its invectives. From what I have observed, it is the cowardice and opportunism of movement conservatives, not Mr. Olmert, which are responsible for the state of the American Right.

Paleos, take the argument up with Bill Buckley, Heritage, and Bill Rusher and not the Israelis.

—Paul Gottfried

The real rock stars of the Israeli intelligentsia—Israel’s own Ward Churchills —are the pretentiously self-styled “New Historians.” This is a group of popular far-left fabricators (one of whom facetiously boasted: “We perform at weddings and bar mitzvas”), who’ve cocked a snook at the liberal country in which they’ve thrived, so as to gain admittance into the fashionable Palestinian pantheon…
…the “New Historians'” most flamboyant and fishy associate [is] Benny Morris. In fact, it was Morris’ bowdlerization of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion’s words that first prompted Karsh to investigate the fraud perpetrated by these hip historians and expose it in his masterful book, “Fabricating Israeli History: The ‘New Historians.'”

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily column, “Harvard Hucksters Hype Israeli Pseudo-Historians.”

Updated continually: Harvard and the University of Chicago have distanced themselves from “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” study, issuing emphatic disclaimers to that effect. The “study” was fraught with logical and factual infelicities and fell foul of minimal scholarly requirements.

“Harvard Hucksters Hype Israeli Pseudo-Historians” dealt with a little-discussed aspect of the “study.”

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting writes that

“[E]ven a cursory examination of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy reveals that it is riddled with errors of fact, logic and omission, has inaccurate citations, displays extremely poor judgement regarding sources, and, contrary to basic scholarly standards, ignores previous serious work on the subject. The bottom line: virtually every word and argument is, or ought to be, in ‘serious dispute.'”

Read CAMERA’s detailed analysis of the study here.

Also of interests is “Yes, It’s Anti-Semitic” by Eliot A. Cohen, who writes the following about the paper:

Inept, even kooky academic work, then, but is it anti-Semitic? If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information–why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic.

A doff of the hat to Walter Block for sending this along.

Melanie Phillips offers a characteristically superb analysis of a Kafkaesque strategy, whereby, “The enemies of antisemitism are the new McCarthyites’… —anyone who called attention to the outbreak of Judeophobia was a McCarthyite, because they were trying to sanitise the crimes of Israel…”

And from civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz: “Debunking the Newest—and the Oldest—Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt “Working Paper’”

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has more on the straw produced by libertarians who are “pretty much indistinguishable from the far left and the far right” in the unenlightened heat they generate. Read “The Ugly Side of Libertarianism.”

Overstating Jewish Power By Christopher Hitchens