When Mr. Greenspan appeared on a recent BBC documentary and was forced to concede to major misunderstandings of certain market phenomena, he was being quite modest. He not only had misunderstood many economic factors, but had wittingly committed every single major blunder leading up to our current "great recession". He bet the future of the American working class against the interests of his supporters and lost. He kept his job and the country (and half the world) went belly up. He faced the same situation as Mr. Churchill when he, as Chancellor of the British Exchequer, had to reestablish the exchange rate for the British pound when Britain rejoined the gold standard regime after the First World War (in 1926). During the war Britain had suffered a major relative productivity loss via the rest of the world (to the U.S. in particular), and should have devalued the pound to preserve British wage rate competitiveness. But the rich, Churchill's major supporters, did not want that to happen. So he went with the rich and failed to devalue the pound, and the British economy went into a tailspin. Churchill had the decency to face the facts that he had blundered, calling this decision the second biggest mistake of his career (Gallipoli being the first). He was well aware of what he was doing but took his chances. Mr. Greenspan was also well aware of the chances he was taking, and chose to likewise support his rich backers. The only difference is that he has refused to admit his mistake and, worse yet, is continuing to encourage our current financial leaders to follow the same practices. This article covers each and every move he made and the consequences.
It's all about the foreign exchange rate, and the desire of Mr.Greenspan's rich friends to maintain a high value of the dollar. The dollar has been maintained at a highly-overrated value for the last 30-some years in order that the rich could buy foreign luxury goods on the cheap, take inexpensive luxurious foreign vacations, and hire foreign labor at exploitative rates (to do the manufacturing work that American workers had previously been doing.) The exchange value of the dollar had been manipulation by the FED and foreign central banks for decades, and more recently by China, leading up to the dustup over China's meddling in exchange values! What hypocrisy! These manipulations had produced a wide and distorted difference in exchange values between Western currencies and the currencies of countries of Southeast Asia, virtually guaranteeing that all tradable goods would be produced overseas. Mr. Greenspan must share at least some small credit for this lamentable circumstance with the (uncontrolled) hedge fund traders who managed to further drive down the currency values of many otherwise financially-sound countries of Southeast Asia These practices have led to the continuing and unaddressed mammoth U.S. trade deficits which will shortly impoverish America (except, or course, the very rich).
The major screw-ups started when George W. took office. During Mr. Clinton's presidency Greenspan had maintained interest rates at around 5 percent. A Democrat was in office and he did not want to make a Democratic president look too good, so he kept the interest rates relatively high. But in order to create a healthy economy under a clueless Republican president (who needed all the help he could get) he started in early 2001 to drastically lower interest rates, finally reaching 1-1 ? percent around mid-2001. Establishing this ultra-low rate was foolish. Bankers will normally not want to lend money to even the most credit-worthy businesses at a rate of, say, 4 percent (a reasonable 3-percent spread over the 1 percent cost of funds). This was amply demonstrated by our recent experiences with U.S. banks facing the same circumstances. At the then-current ultra-low interest rates they could make plenty of money simply by buying risk-free U.S. government securities. It would have been more responsible if Mr. Greenspan had lowered interest rates to, say 2 ? percent, but hey, anything to help a friend.
The banks were not anxious to lent any money to businesses based upon a 1-percent interest rate considering that interest rates had nowhere to go from there but up, and an increase of just a few percent would quickly wipe out most profit spreads from most of their loans, and could very-well quickly lead to mammoth loses. But there was one exception, loaning money at ultra-low rates against real estate. It had no obvious risk because price increases would cover any shortfalls in interest payments even if the borrower was a flake. But even this contingency was covered. The banks, thanks to Wall Street's creation of mortgage-backed securities, were now able to lay off risk on these ill-considered loans to outside investors (as well as with other unsuspecting gulls like Fanny May and Freddy Mac). The rating agencies were also compliant, and all those risky loans blossomed. Now the stage was set for Alan to make his big bet.
The problem with low U.S. interest rates, short term as well as long term, was that foreign investors would not be content with these returns, given their exchange rate as well as interest-rate risks. When foreign investors (individual and government) began to resist purchasing bonds and bills at these ultra-low rates (around late 2005), Mr. Greenspan feared that the dollar would fall on the foreign exchange markets, given the outlandish foreign trade deficits which needed to be resolved. Alan's employers, the rich, did not want the dollar to drop at all. When the dollar's exchange value went down, they called it "inflation". Of course it had very little to do with the type of stateside "inflation" everyone worried about, that caused by too much money in the hands of the general public, driving up the prices of consumer goods. In order to prevent a fall in the dollar, Mr. Greenspan started raising interest rates to prevent a fall in the dollar, citing "inflation" as an excuse, pretending the inflation he was invoking was the kind leading to consumer price increases. That kind of inflation was nowhere in sight, evidenced by the market-driven low interest rates previously prevailing, and by the prevalent sluggish wages and stagnant money supplies experienced over the preceding decades. Proof that he was well aware that inflation was not really the issue was provided when he constantly mused at the time about whether the rate hikes would cause a recession! To worry about "inflation" and "recession" simultaneously is like a physician worrying that a bulimic patient he was treating might become obese. It's insulting and dishonest!
But he went ahead and quickly jacked up interest rates in 2005-6 to the 5-6 percent level, well aware that it could very well push an economy already on the verge of recession into a full-blown one. This was a blunder of far greater impact than even Mr. Greenspan had expected. Raising interest rates have more consequences on the economy than just the cost of credit to businessmen. What Mr. Greenspan should have been aware of, as a banker, was that low interests rates were the driving force behind years of sub-par ("liar" as well as adjustable rate) loans whose owners could only survive if housing prices went up, and a rate hike would (and did) put a screeching halt on rising real estate prices. These rate hikes doomed these home-buyers, as he should have known it would.
As a banker he should also have been well aware that as changes in the bank's cost of money (short term usually) went from 1 percent to 5 percent, as bank examiners forced the banks to value their loan collateral to "market", bank equity would immediately disappear and the balance sheet would show the banks to be insolvent (bankrupt). Even if the bank examiners refused/failed to do this, equity would be slowly siphoned off as money income derived from their loan portfolio would be more than consumed by the costs of funds. This would occur regardless of whether these loans were performing or not. There was no way out when banks were collecting even 6 percent on mortgage loans when their costs of funds jumped to 5 percent. What would they be paying their employees with? their oh-so-valuable executives? A margin of 3 percent would normally have been minimal (even for prime rates loans) to keep a bank viable.
Perhaps Mr.Greenspan was not aware that when the value of the collateral backing any investment or loan instrument heads south, the value of the investment does as well. And many investors depend on the earnings of their investments for normal operations (endowments, brokerage firms, local governments, and insurance companies, et. al.). Those holding mortgaged-backed securities would not receive even reasonable dividends/interest on securities backed by non-performing loans, as well as experiencing the permanent loss of the principal. He should have known of the horrendous consequences to these entities as well. As one of the most trusted public servant he was irresponsible if not criminally negligent.


Welcome to a brand new blog post! I went to York Designer Outlet last week and I thought that I would talk to you all about it.
York Designer Outlet is owned by McArthur Glen. McArthur Glen is known for their designer outlet shopping centres where you can snag an amazing product for a discount of the price that you would find on the high street. They have quite a few stores including York, Nottingham and many more. The stores in the York Outlet include Nike Factory Store, Levi Jeans, M&S Outlet and many more.
A square store with a black bar at the top with Vans in bold white writing with rectangular glass windows with a red rectangular poster saying Up To 50% Off in bold white font on a bright background.
We entered the beautiful building, and slolwy strolled towards the first store on our list, which was Lindt. Lindt are a luxurious swiss Chocolate brand who are famous for items such as the Gold Bunny and the Lindt Lindor. Myself and Luke entered the store due to seeing on the window of the store, that there was a sale going on, so we thought that it would be worth a wonder in. We perused the stands and decided to purchase a Gold Reindeer a piece due to them being only 99p. We then decided that we would treat ourselves and get a Lindor Pick and Mix bag. If you haven't heard of this before, then the concept of it is, that you grab a bag and choose the amount that you want which equals to so many Lindor truffles, then fill with varied flavours of Lindor truffles to your hears content. These include Irish Cream, Strawberries and Cream, Hazelnut, Cappuccino and many more. We paid and swent on to wonder at more stores.
A black square store with a blue front with Lindt in bright gold cursive font with an array of bright gold packaged chocolate reindeers on a black rectangular shelf on a bright background.
After Lindt, we wandered on over to Cadburys to carry on the chocolate fix. We had a look around and ended up coming out with some stuff for Luke. I did nearly get something but I wasn't really sure on what I wanted. I did like the fact that they had Cadbury printed cushions on sale.
Carrying on from the shopping front, I had to pop into the Vans store, as that it always a must when myself and Luke come to the Outlet. I had a browse, and after a while, I decided to buy a light blue Snapback, as I have slowly being digging these more and more at the moment. I'm probably far too late to the trend, but ah well.
We then wandered on through to Levi's, Molton Brown and Gap Outlet to have a look, but we didn't find much, and honestly myself and Luke needed food. We made our way up to the lavish food court, which is filled with restaurants such as, Wagamama, Patisserie Valerie, Pizza Express, Ed's Easy Diner and much more. We decided to go for a McDonalds just due to it being quick and easy to order and eat.
Once the food was demolished, we made our way back down to the plethora of shops. The next two places on our list were Whittards and Yankee Candle. I was looking for the new Blueberry Cheesecake Hot Chocolate that's available at the moment, as I love Blueberries and I love Cheesecake, so I wanted to see what it was like in Hot Chocolate form. Luke loves Yankee Candle, but sadly the main store was closed due to refurbishment, but luckily there was a pop up Yankee store, so we had a look and sniffed a few of the candles. Sadly, none of the candles were screaming out to Luke but we had a good time sniffing and looking.
Next was Dr Martens, Penhaligon and Clarks, We popped into these three to mainly have a look. I nearly bought something from Dr Martens, but I think that with the Docs Outlet store, you have to know exactly what you want. I think the next time that I'm in, I'll make sure I know what I'm looking for. We popped into Penhaligon mainly to check it out as its a cute luxurious beauty business. I think that again, I needed more time to check it out, instead of worrying about other shops and the train home. Clarks was a visit due to them having a sale but sadly neither of us found anything that we wanted.
A black rectangular store with a black headboard saying Dr Martens in bold white font with an array of different coloured boots and shoes at the front of the store on a bright background.
Last on our list was Sunglasses Hut. This is the main reason that Luke comes to the Outlet due to them having designer sunglasses at a discounted price. We browsed the store, and after trying on a few pairs of sunglasses, Luke decided on a nice pair of sunglasses. Whilst that was happening, I decided to try on a few, including a beautiful pair of aviators from Polo Ralph Lauren. One day, maybe.
A selfie of a white young male with medium brown hair with a beard and a silver lip ring wearing a pair of dark metal aviators with Polo Ralph Lauren in small white font wbilst wearing a khaki trenchcoat on a bright background.
Have you ever been to any of the McArthur Glen Designer Outlets before? Let me know down below!
Check out York Designer Outlet.
I hope that you've enjoyed this shopping based blog post and I hope to see you next time for another blog post!


text:
Crossword Puzzle - August 2015
Hey everybody. Guess what time it is. It's crossword solving time!
1 Era (5)
2 Ballroom dance (5)
6 Wife of a nobleman between a count and a duke (8)
10 Discount South African retail chain (3)
11 Edible kernel inside a hard shell (3)
12 Kiss kiss (4)
14 Omega (3)
16 Female sibling (3)
19 Fey, actress (4)
22 Tac toe (3)
24 Apple computer (3)
25 WWII fighter plane (8)
26 Drop him (fly my balloon) (5)
27 Exert downward force (5)
1 Active hostility (6)
2 Sadness (3)
3 Patch of grass in front of a house (4)
4 Lively (5)
5 Seen from your balcony (4)
7 Turkish brandy (5)
8 At the very topic (6)
9 Get a massage here (3)
13 Having six rays (6)
15 Capital of India (5)
17 Shorts worn as underwear (6)
18 Remove all your clothes (5)
20 Demon (3)
21 Hit it with a hammer (4)
23 Medieval hood (4)
25 Take a load off (3)
In case you're not familiar with how this works, or perhaps you just need a refresher, here's the skinny:
Solve this crossword puzzle before Tuesday, 22 September 2015
E-mail me your answers
If you're the first person to send me your correct answers before the cut-off date, I will publish your name on this blog (if you want me to - if you don't, just say so)
Sound simple enough? Go!
Never Miss Another Issue
Oh, and if you want to make sure you don't miss another issue of this crossword puzzle, sign up for my monthly e-mail newsletter. You'll get a free book, if you do. Click below:
Posted by Graham Downs at 16:39 No comments:
Crossword Puzzle - July 2015 Answers
So, it's that time again. The time when I announce the answers to last month's crossword puzzle.
Did you take part? Did you get all the answers? If you did, why didn't you e-mail me? I could be featuring your name in this post!
Well, without further ado, here they are:
1 Unleashed (6) loosed
3 Sol (3) sun
7 Remove the skin off a fruit (4) peel
9 Egg of a louse (3) nit
11 Ball (3) orb
12 Biblical Mount (5) Sinai
14 Respectful address to a woman (4) ma'am
16 Of the navy (5) naval
17 Of a monarch (5) royal
18 On demand (2, 3) ad hoc
21 Have fun (5) enjoy
23 Worn on the foot (4) shoe
24 Describing words (5) nouns
26 Made his acquaintance (3) met
28 Of a smile, dry (3) wry
29 TV psychologist (4) Phil
30 For writing (3) pen
31 Disconnect from a network (3, 3) log off (or log out)
2 Bring about destruction of (2, 2) do in
4 Alien ship (3) ufo
5 Animal tracks (5) spoor
6 Cain's brother (4) Abel
8 TV award (4) Emmy
9 Maths game involving picking things up (3) nim
10 Get a dark skin (3) tan
12 North Indian tree (3) sal
13 Japanese martial art involving swords (5) Iai-do
15 Moses' brother (5) Aaron
18 Exclamations of enlightenment (3) ahs
19 Scottish expression of surprise (4) hech
20 For writing on a blackboard (5) chalk
21 Red muppet (4) Elmo
22 Alternative spelling for "you" (3) yow
23 Afrikaans, "cut" (3) sny
25 Russian mountain range (4) Ural
27 For resting a golf ball on (3) tee
See you next week, for the August 2015 puzzle!
Tales from Virdura: Wolves
William walked into the kitchen just as Kathryn was serving breakfast. He kissed his wife Kathryn on the cheek and sat down, hanging his head in shame.
"What's wrong, papa?" Jeremy, the eldest son.
This made William feel even worse. He was not the children's father. Their real father, Marcus, had been an evil, abusive man who had tried to frame him for killing the children's favourite cow. That had been a year ago. He couldn't believe it had been that long since he had stood in the queen's court, facing allegations that he had had no idea about.
He sighed. "Wolves, my boy," he said. "I have been up for many hours before dawn protecting our stock, trying to ward them away. They have taken three of our cattle this week, and I fear it may be a losing battle."
Kathryn bent down and placed a plate of bacon and eggs on the table in front of William. "Have you considered going to Jacob with this? I really think we ought."
"Jacob's the constable of Virdura Castle, my love. And there's been no crime. I wouldn't want to waste his time; besides, what does he know about wolves?"
Kathryn sat down at the table, and began eating her own breakfast, when there was a knock on the door.
William rose to his feet and opened it. In the doorway stood Jacob, holding his hat in his hands against his chest, looking very concerned.
"Constable, what seems to be the problem?"
"There's been an accident, sir," said Jacob. "Young Master Thomas, from the farm opposite yours. He has been mauled by a wolf, on your property. He has been rushed to the healer."
"Oh dear," said William. "That's terrible! Is he going to be all right?"
"It seems so, sir," replied the constable. "But it could have been worse. Those wolves on your property are becoming a real nuisance. You should really consider doing something about them."
"Be vigilant, boy," said William to Jeremy. "These wolves could attack at any moment."
The moon was high in the night sky, and the two could hear night-larks in the distance. Jeremy brandished his pitchfork.
"Don't worry, papa. We'll get them. No wolf is going to take any more of our cows. As I live and breathe, I promise you that.
William smiled and ruffled Jeremy's hair. Brave young boy, he thought. First his cow is murdered by his own father, and now the wolves. He's had a hard life.
"It is strange though," continued Jeremy. "I've never heard of wolves stealing cows before. Sheep, yes. But never cows."
As William was about to respond, he heard a snarling sound from behind him. He turned, just in time for a snow-white wolf to leap into him, knocking him to the ground.
Jeremy screamed as William tried to fight off the wolf with his arms. The animal's jaws locked around William's forearm, and the blood flowed. The boy took courage, and charged at the wolf, pitchfork in hand. He ran the beast through.
The wolf yelped and then fell silent; Jeremy followed through with the pitchfork, pushing the beast off of William. The man sat up and cradled his arm. The blood seeped through his fingers and onto the ground.
"Papa, are you all right?" said Jeremy. "We need to get you to a healer!"
"I'll be fine, son," said William. "Wolves always hunt in packs. The others must be close."
Fully two hours later, there was still no sign of any other wolves, which William found strange. What was also strange was the fact that he was beginning to feel very sleepy.
"You're very pale, papa," said Jeremy. "I think we should go to the healer."
"I'll be fine," said William. "I just need to... lie down... for..."
"Papa!" Jeremy screamed. But no response came from William. The boy got up, and ran as fast as he could for the healer."
William opened his eyes, slowly. He looked down at his arm, and saw a clean white bandage on it. Looking up, he saw Kathryn and Jeremy, smiling down at him.
"Where am I?" he asked.
"You're at the healer's," replied Kathryn. "You gave us quite a scare. Jeremy said you passed out."
The memory started rushing back. "It's thanks to Jeremy that I'm still alive," he said. "The boy killed a wolf, all by himself!"
Jeremy blushed. "It was nothing," he said.
"We searched every inch of the farm," said Jacob, stepping forward. "We found no other wolves. It seemed as though that one was hunting alone."
"Strange," said William. "They always hunt in packs."
"Indeed," said Jacob. "Perhaps the one that you saw was a loner, but you'd best keep an eye open anyway."
"Yes," said William. "Or perhaps it wasn't a wolf at all."
* Image from Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dmuth/8176793116/
Labels: Free Writing
Did You Go to the Exclusive Books Warehouse Sale?
Look at that queue!
If you live in or around Johannesburg, you may have known that Exclusive Books had a pretty massive Warehouse Sale this weekend. All books (hardcover, paperback, new releases, old releases) were only R20, and all proceeds went to various literary charities throughout South Africa.
The event was supposed to run from 29 July to 2 August 2015, but it was such a resounding success, that it was completely sold out of several hundred thousand books, by the end of Saturday, 1 August 2015!
The photo on the right was shared on Exclusive Books' Facebook page on the morning of day one (29 July). Take a look at that queue! I wonder what that guy is doing on his cellphone: perhaps he's telling a friend or loved one that they'd better hurry if they want to get anything at the sale....
You may also know that I donated four paperback copies of my romantic crime novelette, Heritage of Deceit, to the sale. Like all books, it also cost only R20, and all proceeds went to charity.
I really wanted to attend, and take a photo of my book on sale, but due to circumstances out of my control, I couldn't make it.
Did you go? How was it? Did you find any literary gems out there? I'd love to hear your feedback - please post them in the comments below.
Also, if you happen to have picked up a copy of Heritage of Deceit while you were there, I would absolutely adore a photo! If you take one of you holding the book, or just of the book lying on your coffee or bedside table, and e-mail it to me, I'll send you one of my e-books (your choice), free of charge.
How's that?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Trump Peace Plan

 
Mondoweiss Mondays
100 Recent Comments
Menu  
News & Opinion About Palestine, Israel & the United States
Media Analysis
The 'hasbara' tweeps who brought down Jim Clancy, and their ties to Israel and the Israel lobby
Allison Deger on January 20, 2015 101 Comments
Jim Clancy.
    
Veteran CNN journalist Jim Clancy's resignation this week is one of the odder media fallouts from the Charlie Hebdo Paris attack. On January 7, Clancy got into a late night Twitter spat regarding the French satirical magazine with online adversaries. When he told them they were ganging up on him and practicing "hasbara," the Hebrew word for "explaining" that describes pro-Israel advocacy often at the behest of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they lashed back as if the term were libelous. As it turns out, Clancy was not off base. Some who sparred with him have worked for the Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, and one online activist in particular boasts of a track record of getting journalists fired for their comments on social media about Israel and its conflicts in the Middle East.
Because neither Clancy nor his employer offered an explanation as to why he quit, much speculation has circulated. The reigning theory is that he was forced to leave because calling out online commentators for having a pro-Israel slant is seen as a redline for mainstream journalists. Clancy also made an ableist comment; he said his Twitter foes' time was better spent by picking off a "cripple." Within days Clancy's Twitter account was suspended and he confirmed to TVNewer that he had left CNN after nearly 34 years.
The big question remain. Was Clancy correct when he said that a handful of those he was arguing with online were engaging in hasbara? And did they coerce a pink slip? The answer to both questions is likely yes.
First, let's review the actual tweets. Everything started when Clancy tweeted to say that the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo depicting the image of Islam's prophet were not offensive. "The cartoons NEVER mocked the Prophet. They mocked how the COWARDS tried to distort his word. Pay attention."
In response, @Elderofzyion wrote, "You might want to actually look at the cartoons before tweeting about them. I have a collection: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-collection-of-charlie-hedbo.html …"
@Elderofziyon, an anonymous Israel supporter who does not live in the country, has a track record of getting journalists canned. He mans a blog of the same name that purports to be a right-wing fact check machine. For instance, Elder has blogged repeatedly and aggressively about Mondoweiss. In the past he has worked on an advocacy project with the pro-Israel group Stand With Us, which just announced a partnership with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or as Clancy would call it, he volunteers in hasbara. On his blog Elder has also advertised a job opening with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On Friday Elder of Ziyon wrote in a post entitled, "Elder gets results! Jim Clancy fired from CNN" that "The respected CNN anchor who insulted me on Twitter during an epic and bizarre meltdown is now gone. Buh-bye!" He also bragged, "This is the second CNN personality that I've been involved in getting fired." In 2010 he campaigned for CNN to let go of Senior Editor of Mideast Affairs Octavia Nasr after she tweeted praise of a lately-deceased Hezbollah leader. At that time, Elder boasted "That's two high-profile people I helped to get fired this year for their impolitic comments and activities." This was an apparent reference to Human Rights Watch's Marc Garlasco.
Another challenge to Clancy over his comment about Charlie Hebdo cartoons came from pro-Israel advocate Oren Kessler: "Absolutely untrue. The magazine was targeted in the past over an issue in which Muhammad was listed as guest editor."
To this, Clancy tweeted back to Kessler one fateful word, "hasbara?"
Kessler retorted, "you could admit that your tweet was mistaken, and your response to me was inappropriate."
Clancy then doubled down on the hasbara accusations, and made his offensive "cripple" comment. He tweeted, "You and the Hasbara team need to pick on some cripple on the edge of the herd" and "The Hasbara (Israeli explaining the inconsistencies of Human Rights) team has declared victory over @ClancyCNN – next up, #ICC" and "Here's the rub: @JewsMakingNews @elderofziyon are accounts with about 50 followers…who are also part of a PR campaign that is anti-Muslim," and "These accounts are part of a campaign to do PR for #Israel @JewsMakingNews @elderofziyon Nothing illegal – but PR not HR : Human Rights."
Hasbara team? Oren Kessler is a former journalist for the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz and now a think-tank man, working for the hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which supports tougher U.S. sanctions on Iran and a strong pro-Israel line. Chief positions in the group were held by Clifford May from the Republican National Committee, former (W.) Bush security advisor James Woolsey, former aide to Dick Cheney John Hannah, and AIPAC staffer Toby Dershowitz, according to research from My Right Web, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. The 2007 book The Israel Lobby calls the Foundation a part of the Israel lobby and notes that it urged "regime change" in Iran in the wake of the Iraq invasion in 2003.
FDD's other campaigns have included "30-second television spots conflating Yasser Arafat with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The video's producer was Nir Boms, FDD's first vice president and a former officer for the Israeli Embassy in Washington," per My Right Web.
After Kessler chimed into the conversation, journalist Yair Rosenberg, who writes for Tablet and works as an editor for the Israeli National Archives, took notice. Rosenberg has over 10,000 followers, and he propelled the story to an international attention by tweeting, "Wow, so this is an extraordinarily unprofessional response by a CNN anchor when faced with a factual correction," and "Uh, after these incredibly biased and inappropriate tweets, I hope CNN won't be sending this guy to cover Israel." Rosenberg later said online that he was surprised Clancy had to leave his job over this row.
Meantime, the cripple remark caught ire from Jay Ruderman, the head of a family foundation that supports organizations that work with disabled persons, particularly youth. Ruderman tweeted at Clancy, "Cripple is derogatory term," then repeatedly called for CNN to apologize for the offensive remark over Twitter, on Israeli television and in the pages of the Washington Examiner.
Unquestionably, Clancy's cripple remark did warrant an apology. But as for the word, "hasbara," which set everything in motion, Clancy was not off base with respect to Ruderman. For nearly six years Ruderman was employed by AIPAC, and he also was an IDF liaison with the Jewish Diaspora. In 2010 he was the vice-chair of international affairs for the pro-Israel, anti-Semitism watchdog the Anti-Defamation League [PDF].
Ruderman heads a charitable trust that embraces Jewish values, and he has spoken out in defense of Israelis with disabilities. Last October he said that the anonymous use of the word "Aspergery" by an Obama administration official to describe Benjamin Netanyahu was offensive to millions who have Asperger syndrome. What's more, Ruderman's organization maintains strong ties with the Israeli government. The Ruderman Family Foundation offers members of Knesset fellowships to speak at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. From the foundation's website: "Ruderman Knesset Fellows" seeks to provide "a unique opportunity for Members of Knesset to acquire first-hand knowledge of the American Jewish community, its priorities, challenges and sensibilities." Participants run the gamut in Israeli politics, from sponsoring members of the far-left group Mertez, to the far-right Jewish Home party.
After the now notorious Twitter debacle, Clancy's only public comment was a confirmation to TVNewer that he was indeed leaving CNN. Here's the goodbye note:
After nearly 34 years with Cable News Network, the time has come to say Farewell!
It has been my honor to work alongside all of you for all of these years. This is one of the greatest news organizations in the world. It has truly revolutionized information delivery while driving technological advances in how we gather the news.
Through it all, CNN has been a family to my own family. That means something.
As I reflect on all of the great adventures and achievements of the past, I wish you great success in the future.
Jim Clancy
The only comment from the news anchor's former employer was a quick, "Jim Clancy is no longer with CNN. We thank him for more than three decades of distinguished service, and wish him nothing but the best," given to TVNews.
What the future holds for Clancy remains a media mystery. He is, however, one of the most high profile journalists to resign after going head to head with advocates for Israel online. The right-leaning Honest Reporting, a self-proclaimed defender of "Israel from media bias," which covered the story from the beginning, questioned if there was a "teachable moment" from the fiasco, as no one from CNN offered up a reason for Clancy's departure, or an apology. Honest Reporting also admitted to drumming up a bombardment of complaints to CNN. Therefore it concluded that the real lesson-learned was "how force of numbers can have a tremendous impact. Between HonestReporting and a number of other concerned organizations, Clancy's misdemeanor was exposed for all to see and led to a huge number of complaints to CNN."
What remains is the question of whether it was the ableist comment, or the hasbara comment that forced Clancy to leave his job. If Clancy left over the "cripple" comment, that seems extreme. It is indefensible to use that term, but an apology should have been enough– and people say a lot of wild things on twitter. If he lost his job for calling out pro-Israel online advocacy in the midst of his own run-in with those advocates, that reflects a worrisome tightening of speech. They were Israel advocates. This element of his quitting or firing should not be forgotten as it does present a warning to journalists. As the hardly left-leaning Thomas Friedman has explained, even espousing the U.S. State Department's official policy that settlements are illegal and East Jerusalem is an occupied city can stop a career before it starts.
The logical after-effect of this Twitter war is that senior journalists within major news networks will surely think twice before uttering the word "hasbara" from here on.
Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly identified Yair Rosenberg as Israeli.
Allison Deger
Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Follow her on twitter at @allissoncd.
Other posts by Allison Deger.
Les on January 20, 2015, 1:10 pm
Had he been Jewish, he would have been canned long ago. What good did he do by leeping quiet about hasbara for 30+ years?
Krauss on January 20, 2015, 3:50 pm
I agree. To be a Jewish anti-Zionist is the most dangerous thing these people know, because the whole "anti-Semitism" attack simply doesn't work and the whole "self-hating Jew" is laughable and a pathetic attack.
As for the whole Clancy affair, basically what it shows is that the lobby isn't just AIPAC but that there is a Zionist blood oath that you need to take to partake in the higher levels in the media.
It's okay to be a non-Zionist, but you can't be an anti-Zionist.
This reminds me of the Charles W. Freeman, Jr affair. Basically it was also a campaign by the Israel lobby to attack someone who isn't toeing the party line.
It's funny, they keep claiming that their influence are "conspiracies" but they keep proving us right.
Daniel Rich on January 20, 2015, 5:19 pm
@ Krauss,
Q: "anti-Semitism"
R: Only when Jews hate Goy it becomes BS AS.
I know a lot of ppl and they don't hate me, they hate what the Apartheid State is doing.
jahan on January 20, 2015, 1:30 pm
In all my years this is the first time I learned that "cripple" was a derogatory comment. While I have not used the word. I always felt that it was an adequated description of a person with ambulatory difficulties.
Mooser on January 20, 2015, 2:09 pm
" I always felt that it was an adequated description of a person with ambulatory difficulties."
I'm assuming spel-chek tripped you up, like it does me, and "antiquated" is the word you want.
I like to use "a person with ambulatory difficulties" as words to describe a person with ambulatory difficulties.
MRW on January 20, 2015, 2:29 pm
Cripple is NOT a derogatory term. Look it up. And who are these cruise directors determining which speech is "appropriate." I have the Merriam Dictionary to keep me warm. Bitch there.
Just because some guy who works with disabled people claims so, doesn't make it so. People can be crippled by any number of events; so can animals, the economy, and a business.
"Just because some guy who works with disabled people claims so, doesn't make it so"
A gentle answer turneth away Roth. Which, you must admit, is easier than waxing him.
biggerjake on January 27, 2015, 7:57 pm
"But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
Boomer on January 20, 2015, 2:40 pm
I'm no authority on PC lingo, but I think that during my lifetime the term "cripple" has in some circles gone from being neutral to considered offensive when applied to a particular person. I know some working-class folks who continue to use it without any derogatory implication, but it wouldn't be perceived that way on a university campus.
In this case, however, he wasn't using it to describe anyone in particular. Indeed, the reference to the "herd" indicates he had in mind an analogy with nonhuman behavior, e.g., predators lurking around a herd of grazing animals, trying to pick off one of the weaker targets (due to age or infirmity). So to me it seems a stretch to impute to him any bigotry against the disabled. It makes no sense to me in this context. Rather, what we see is a typical faux outrage used for political purposes.
In the case of Octavia Nasr, CNN's decision was unfortunate (and rightly criticized by commentators as diverse as Tom Friedman and Glenn Greenwald), but she did leave an opening for critics to attack, albeit unjustly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavia_Nasr
I haven't tried to follow all the details of the Clancy case, but to the extent I understand it, I don't see any justification for his dismissal.
Mayhem on January 20, 2015, 7:01 pm
@Boomer, he wasn't dismissed – he fell on his own sword.If you are asked for an apology and an apology should be forthcoming and you don't apologize then to resign is obligatory. Clancy suffered from 'foot in mouth' disease which in professional circles is generally fatal.
annie on January 20, 2015, 8:09 pm
he wasn't dismissed – he fell on his own sword.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fall_on_one%27s_sword
To resign from a job or other position of responsibility, especially when pressured to do so.
it can amount to the same thing as getting fired. unless you've never heard of orgs asking people to resign. it probably had to do w/the deal offered. resign/severance pay, go quietly vs get fired.
@ Boomserja,
Q: aqua-dated adequated
R: Leave those Judea crucifying f**** out of the equation, thank you, already.
Romans… ff-ing Bullocks Bulvons!
Jackdaw on January 20, 2015, 1:44 pm
Alison.
Elder and Oren Kessler were challenging Clancy's views on the Charley Hebdo cartoons.
Clancy started calling them 'hasbarists', which has nothing to do with Charley Hebdo's cartoons.
amigo on January 20, 2015, 2:11 pm
"Clancy started calling them 'hasbarists', which has nothing to do with Charley Hebdo's cartoons." jack-duh.
What,s the problem, they are hasbarists , ergo propagandists.
Anyway , now he is free to speak his mind and thanks to whoever fired him , his gander is up.
Poor old zios , never take an opportunity to keep their mouths shut.
DaBakr on January 20, 2015, 3:23 pm
"The logical after-effect of this Twitter war is that senior journalists within major news networks will surely think twice before uttering the word "hasbara" from here on." –
yeah right- except he could have just explained what he meant by linking charlie hebdo comments with advocacy for Israel instead of making some stupid comment about cripples and herds. I seriously doubt anybody is worried about uttering the word 'hasbara' if its used in the proper context and not hurled as a general belligerent and meaningless insult.
The problem wasn't his mentioning Hasbara as nobody denied that hasbara exists or that bloggers like eoz practice pro-Israel advocacy. It was failing to explain what that had to do with the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo drawing cartoons of the prophet which he denied were offensive when they clearly were. In fact-anyone who does think they were offensive-you pretty much agree with elderofziyon (who proceeded to pull up a CH cartoon that was outrageously pornographic/disgusting in portraying the 'prophet' to further convince cncy of his mistake.)
the hasbrats didn't like him saying they were pr hacks
"Here's the rub: @JewsMakingNews @elderofziyon are accounts with about 50 followers…who are also part of a PR campaign that is anti-Muslim," and "These accounts are part of a campaign to do PR for #Israel @JewsMakingNews @elderofziyon Nothing illegal – but PR not HR : Human Rights."
everybody knows that anyway. they probably just don't like it blathered freely on the internet by CNN reps. like we're supposed to believe they are not hacks and care about HR. we get it.
btw, when pr hacks, in bragging about their scalps, describe clancy as having an "epic and bizarre meltdown" (keep in mind these are the same hacks who were praising glick for what any normal person would describe as a meltdown) when he did no suck thing, are trying to disguise how powerful their little ethnic cadre is within the rich and powerful msm. any normal institution this would not be grounds for firing and obviously clancy didn't tweet anything that outrageous. (i mean nothing compared to "the interview-sony" fiasco, and no heads got chopped off there.) that is because the standard of completely different if you support israel and slaughtering little children in gaza, vs team palestine.
So what? it's a 140-character world.
"Clancy started calling them 'hasbarists',"
What's next? He's going to call them "Zionists"? Will these blood libels never cease?
Remember that little contretemps? "Zionist" is now an antisemitic pejorative, so why not "hasbarist"?
Pretext on January 21, 2015, 12:04 am
"Hasbarists" have nothing to do with Charley Hebdo's cartoons? You could have fooled me when the Grand Poobah Hasbarist himself was racing over the France to elbow his way in front of the cameras and exploit the tragedy for maximum propaganda value.
a blah chick on January 20, 2015, 2:25 pm
The only way the hasbara log jam will be broken is by people like Clancy speaking truth to power. Unfortunately in the beginning many will be sacrifice but sooner or later someone will break through and the narrative will change.
This article needs to go viral. Good job, Allison.
wondering jew on January 20, 2015, 2:42 pm
The reporter in question claimed that Charlie Hebdo cartoonists never insulted Mohammed only insulted cowards who spoke in the name of Mohammed falsely. the tweeters responded: you are wrong. and in fact he was wrong. and he responded: you are propagandists for Israel, which was totally besides the point. His tweet was false and his defense was just plain stupid. and now we have a column that proves that the tweeters were in fact propagandists. this is just mediocrity masquerading as journalism.
"this is just mediocrity masquerading as journalism "
No Yonah. This is yellow journalism trying to smear Israel any which way it can.
And remember, fellows, like any website, Mondoweiss lives or dies according to the number of "hits" and "unique page views"! So thanks for helping so much.
Marnie on January 21, 2015, 1:58 am
To think that some sh*thead with nothing going for him other than his ability to be a major irritant (apparently the only qualification for hasbarists) got under the skin of Jim Clancy? Wow. Quite an accomplishment. Mr. Clancy, having a spine, maybe decided f*ck it, I'm calling this SOB out on his b*llsh*t. And Mr. Clancy quit his job. I hope in days to come there'll be more information on this, but in the meantime will be sure to skip over your whiny posts and your wah-wahing about poor little 'ol israel being smeared by the press. In the meantime, the little hasbarists will continue to smear their slime trail over everyone and everything. Must pay be bucks.
Marnie, may I council forbearance? Yonah is part of a very inclusive community, one which involves its members almost completely. Why, we are very lucky he manages to spend any time here at all. He must have a lot of people wanting his counsel, companionship, and judgement.
John O on January 20, 2015, 3:06 pm
And he deserved to have his livelihood terminated for that? Be careful when you next utter a falsehood, Yonah.
"Be careful when you next utter a falsehood, Yonah."
Yonah may lie, but he's never uncivil, like that Salaita guy! He said a bad word!
John O- No. I never said anything regarding his loss of employment. Merely that the exchange between Clancy and the other two tweeters reveals a stupidity and a deafness on Clancy's part.
"Merely that the exchange between Clancy and the other two tweeters reveals a stupidity and a deafness on Clancy's part."
And this, of course, reveals your intelligence, and pitcher-perfect ears for the Mott's Juice. Or shall we tip-toe through your archives, looking for the gentle word which turneth away Weiss?
"No. I never said anything regarding his loss of employment."
Yonah, you said more than enough in the threads about Prof. Salaita. regarding loss of employment for non-workplace incivility.
talknic on January 20, 2015, 3:07 pm
The closer independent Palestinian statehood gets, the worse the bitching, kicking, screaming, lying and killing will become. On independent Palestinian statehood the window of opportunity forever closes on the notion of a Greater Israel for the State of Israel.
The prophets of Israel via Deuteronomy 20:15 "This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby"
1948 "The state of Israel ….will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel"
1949 The Delegation of Israel holds, therefore, that only the territorial adjustment proposed above falls equally in its effects on the rights and position of each negotiating party, makes no encroachment upon existing sovereignties
It will ironically be the last opportunity missed by the Zionist colonizers, who've never missed the opportunity to miss an opportunity to screw up on behalf of the Jewish people's right to live anywhere in their historic homeland in Palestine
@tk
again…never missing a point to miss the point and continue ranting about Israel anyway.
amigo on January 21, 2015, 6:53 am
"again…never missing a point to miss the point and continue ranting about Israel anyway."dabakr
Never missing an opportunity to increase M W,S ratings.See mooser post above.
Keep up the good work dabakr and hopefully those visiting the site will read your posts .That will be a win for Mondo and the Palestinian cause.
You really are very special buddy.
Mooser on January 21, 2015, 11:10 am
Oh, BTW, "Yonah" and "Dabakr" et al, a comment rejected by a Moderator also counts as a "hit", more likely a "unique page view", even if it isn't printed. So you guys are helping twice or three times as much as the rest of us. Thanks again. Every time you complain about your posts not being printed, I get an extra tickle out of that.
Plus, the entire world gets to read your posts and draw conclusions. And your archive belongs to Mondo. You gave it them.
'gee amigoeeeee and moosereeeee'…….
don't you know that we Zionist have all the power in the world we need to use against the MW? You really think I would come here if it wasn't entertaining on some level? You know how argumentative certain folks can be. anyhow? And yes, I've been accused by some supercilious members here of being some type of 'professional' hasbarist but whats even more horrifying is that many letter 'e's' have often been added to my name which makes me think I am being marked by some super secret anti-Zionist code.
But actually-I am fine with my posts contributing to MW being more popular as I ascribe in general to idea that PUBLIC forums should be out in the open and read by the public. As much as it might be tempting to call on the all powerful 'lobby'- its probably better if everybody gets to make up their own minds…
[ps: mssr-my posts are generally printed now -since I complained-and-the last time a post was moderated it was my fault and I know exactly why the comment was removed. but thanks for the concern. glad it 'helps']
And DaBakr gives out with a short mutter.
"don't you know that we Zionist have all the power in the world we need to use against the MW?"
Redt zich ayn a kind in boich!
talknic on January 23, 2015, 11:19 am
@ DaBakr
"again…never missing a point to miss the point and continue ranting about Israel anyway"
I guess everyone has their own way of doing things, but not even attempting to address the points I've made doesn't seem very convincing.
eljay on January 23, 2015, 11:42 am
>> DaBakreee: … whats even more horrifying is that many letter 'e's' have often been added to my name which makes me think I am being marked by some super secret anti-Zionist code.
Only three "e"s are added. eee was a proudly hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist who used to frequent Mondoweiss. While you may not be him, you and other Zio-supremacists here are very much like him, which is why I append "eee" to your usernames.
Consider it a badge of honour, if that makes you happier and less paranoid. :-)
American on January 20, 2015, 4:51 pm
talknic January 20, 2015, 3:07 pm
The closer independent Palestinian statehood gets, the worse the bitching, kicking, screaming, lying and killing will become."
They are a pit of hisssing snakes striking at everything and nothing.
And cripple in the context it was used referring to cripple or injured herd animals is not bigoted.
@amr
I think your correct. in the context he used "cripple" it was in reference to an animal herd and was not really a firing offense. I guess Zionists really do rule the world. Unless it was the hundreds of millions of Muslims– who think he was wrong about the cartoons not being insulting to their prophet– who wanted him fired.
annie on January 20, 2015, 10:38 pm
I guess Zionists really do rule the world.
not sure about the whole world, but CNN, you bet.
peterfeld on January 20, 2015, 3:16 pm
Hmm is Jay Ruderman related to Gary Jay Rudoren ne Ruderman?
crone on January 20, 2015, 4:39 pm
OT: is there going to be an article/thread/discussion with regard to Netanyahu's latest action?
"Israel today attacked a Hizbullah convoy on the Syrian side of the Golan heights and killed the Hizbullah commander in Syria as well as six other Hizbullah fighters. One of those killed today was Jihad Imad Mughniyeh the son of Hizbullah commander Imad Mughniyeh killed by Israeli agents a few years ago. The attack was carried out by missiles released from a helicopter within Israeli borders." (See MoA)
Bibi's words are of interest of course, but his actions are even moreso…
crone, i have been following this very carefully but i don't cover lebanon anymore here. short story but not worth telling. btw, some israel source just tried claiming they never intended to target an iranian general in the attack! yeah right.
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-didnt-target-iranian-general-strike-source-135044807.html
"We did not expect the outcome in terms of the stature of those killed – certainly not the Iranian general," the source said. "We thought we were hitting an enemy field unit that was on its way to carry out an attack on us at the frontier fence.
yeah right, another pre emptive strike 'they were on their way to attack us!!!' are israelis really this gullible?
Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 20, 2015, 6:01 pm
"are israelis really this gullible?"
Going by the online interactions I had with Israelis this summer, when they swallowed hook line and sinker the BS line about 'tunnels reaching under kindergartens' and how their army went out of its way to avoid civilian casualties but the international media was duped by the Khamas, then I would say the answer to your question is 'yes'. Though brainwashed might be a more suitable word.
It has been suggested that the timing of the attack may be related to Israel's elections:
http://972mag.com/election-politics-war-crimes-and-assassinations/101575/
Juan Cole provides some useful background and analysis:
http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/israels-strike-hizbullah.html
when we were commenting about this on another thread recently i mentioned israel's primary goal in the region was expansion of it's territorial control. now i read this: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.638102
Nonetheless, such action expands the extent of Israel's involvement in the war in Syria, and turns Israel into an additional important element in the constellation of strategic considerations with respect to Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. And this is particularly true when the target that was attacked was not a Hezbollah arms convoy or depot – indeed, such acts have long since gained international legitimacy – but rather a command group responsible for directing a military front.
And here Israel is drawing another clear red line, demonstrating that as long as the rebel groups control a portion of the Syrian Golan, and even if they are affiliated with Al-Qaida – Israel will not view that as a threat per se. Still, the entry of Hezbollah forces and Iranian fighters there would be considered a strategic turning point that would likely be met by violent Israeli resistance.
From Iran's standpoint, such a situation threatens the "monopoly" it has in Syria, because such an Israeli approach would rope President Assad into the problem as well, since his desire to reassert control in his part of the Golan Heights with the help of Hezbollah forces and Iran would be halted by Israel. At the moment, it would leave control in the hands of the rebels, who, even without coordination with Israel, will view the Jewish state as a means of protection against Assad's forces.
israel wants to annex more land. that is what they get out of this. and once again they uses religious extremists to do their bidding while promoting the hasbara to the outside world they are "surrounded by extremists" when in fact they are protecting them for their own self interests.
israel doesn't want stability in the region, it thrives off the opposite.
exactly which "more land" is Israel hoping to annex in the region of Syria/Golan? We withdrew to the UN blue line and annexed Golan. Are you saying Israel is looking to annex even more land in Syria/Lebanon?
given the opportunity, most likely. what other reason would they prefer to have AQ on their border. religious extremists have always provided israel with context to be more oppressive. in fact, if they didn't exist israel would probably invent them.
israel is always more comfortable w/the victimized hasbara wrt their foreign policy or relations with palestine. they only want to be the oppressor, they want to be perceived as the oppressed as they expand. this is why, when they attack, they claim it is a pre emptive strike, in defense. always in defence, as far as i know, israel always claims to be reacting, never the cause of aggression. this was how they captured the golan heights last time, they claimed they were victims of aggression when in fact they instigated hostilities with the intent to steal the land. there is nothing in the history of zionism that would lead anyone to believe they have changed. it's merely matter of time, that is why it's so important to definitively stop them once and for all.
DaBakr on January 21, 2015, 5:05 am
@annie:
If you have ever physically seen the topography of the Golan in relation to the Galilee you would know how ridiculous this piece of revisionist history is. They were not Israeli guns mounted at the bottom of the heights shooting up at the 'peaceful' Syrians. Have you ever read any of the speeches made by the Baathist regime in Syria circa 60s/70s against Israel? Regardless of how much one hates Israel-they were an implacable foe who treated Palestinian refugees only slightly better then other Arab nations. Can you point out any Israeli speeches threatening Syrian annihilation from that same period? Or is it all just that Zionists are naturally sneaky and tricked the Syrians into making threatening blood-curdling (yes-they bragged of actual Jewish blood running ) speeches as a ploy in '67 to secretly attack them and and in '73 to trick the Syrians into attacking by surprise during Yom Kippur) to steal the Golan because-after all-the infant Jewish nation always swore from may 14 '48 that it would would never rest until the Golan was conquered from the formerly colonized Syria"{right?}
You can convince a lot of the members here (and a lot of members here can convince others with their own explanation of history) that it was all a Zionist plot but for people who were alive and engaged-you can not simply revise what happened with security plots, conspiracies and grand lies by-suprise-only one side, Israel while the other was merely a poor duped victim of 'Zionist treachery' and make that the 'truth' one does not erase the other. sometimes it adds layers, context, sometimes not.
Engaging in an endless debate about so-called nefarious "plan D" and what SoS threatened to withhold US weapons if Israel took Damascus and all of that which I am well aware of including the legitimate and illegitimate revisions to actual history which is never really quite about absolute truth is pointless.
But if you seriously believe that the only reason why Israel would 'rather' (and that is a very bad english descriptive word here) have alNusra on its northern frontier then Iran/Hezbollah is as an eventual plan to annex more Syrian territory then I really can't say anything to you that would convince you otherwise.
Of course I think the concept is absurd and not born out by even the most hawkish of Israeli politicians-none of whom I am aware are advocating for annexing Syria. but hey-if this is what you believe in your heart then….you'll have to wait and find out what happens. What I think Israel would "rather" have is a happy and peaceful Syrian nation with happy autonomous citizens to make a decent peace treaty with and not be in a position of choosing the lesser of five enemy options for its northern flank. But what the hell do I know?.
Citizen on January 22, 2015, 6:41 am
Hey, let's ask the surviving crew of the USS Liberty about Israel's activity re Golan.
"But what the hell do I know?"
Oh, I think there are lot's of people here who might be able to hazard an estimate.
@cz
and while yout asking them-ask the surviving US marines from the Beirut bombing how they feel about it too
@ DaBakr "We withdrew to the UN blue line and annexed Golan"
A) The blue line is a disengagement line, not a border, Israel's borders are the same as the day they were proclaimed in order to be recognized http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf No country has ever recognized any further territories as Israeli.
B) Check the Knesset pal, Israel has never even attempted to annex the Golan.
Israel can't legally annex territory acquired by war unless it has an agreement with the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed, sans Israeli citizens. Nor can Israel annex the Golan under the guidance of the Prophets of Israel per Deuteronomy 20:15 because the Golan belongs to a nearby state!
DaBakr on January 24, 2015, 10:41 pm
Try: December '81.
@ DaBakr "Try: December '81"
Try coming up with a Knesset document that says Israel annexed the Golan. Fact is … there isn't one because Israel didn't annex the Golan.
Digging a deeper hole only demonstrates stupidity. Keep digging pal!
have it your way. its not recognized by most 'international' bodies which but if you want to say the Golan was not effectively annexed by Begin in dec 15, '81 and what you consider the Zionist mouthpiece NYT needed to retract their dec 14 '81 headline:" Israel Annexes Golan…." then be my guest. Or-maybe you'd prefer a quote from the Gaurdian?
Israel last night annexed the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in the Six-day War of June 1967. The measure removes all prospect of a territorial compromise in any future peace negotiation. Annexation of the Heights, where 6,600 Jews live in 31 settlements, will be popular with the overwhelming majority of Israelis.
Whatever you believe-Unless the actual Syrian people collectively overthrow Assad, kick out aq/is/hz/Irng etc and form their own gov't to negotiate a treaty the Golan is going nowhere soon no matter how badly you wish it otherwise or dream your dreams of 'glory' Hezbollah will visit upon Israel and how Israel has 'nothing' left. I will continue to hope that another war is avoided and that 'skirmishes' are the extant to which hostilities rise
Zofia on January 26, 2015, 1:07 pm
@DaBakr
About Golan:
Golan Heights after 1967 war became almost empty [population of 120.000 to 130.000 that lived on a plateau of 70 km became a population of about 17.000 at present].
After 1967 Israel absorbed Golan into its economy and the application of Syrian law was discontinued. Israeli authorities explained it by the fact that all local judges had "fled" and there were no local law books from which local law could be ascertained. That is quite a poor excuse, since Israel could have let those judges come back and get new local law books, but hey… anything that will slightly pass as an excuse right? [try: Th.S. Kuttner, about International Law of Belligerent Occupation]. Golan Heights law from 1981 reads: "the law, jurisdiction and administration of the state shall apply to the Golan Heights" [Have you even read that law?]. This wording drew some discussion as to whether it constituted annexation of the Golan Heights to Israel. Leon Sheleff has argued that in the absence of express language favoring annexation, the Golan Law should be construed as narrowly as possible: it merely applies Israeli law there, but does not change the status of the region as an occupied territory. The annexation of a territory governed by a belligerently occupying regime is repugnant to international law. United Nation Security Council adopted Resolution 497, which declared that "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied SGH is null and void and without international effect". Syria regarded the law as declaration of war and annulled the state of cease fire agreement.
In the future thus that law will constitute some problem for Israel, since the status of GH still requires a solution that will settle its status [it is still occupied, etc.] and in any future peace agreement with Syria, the Knesset will first need to approve of the agreement with an absolute majority vote and then have the Israeli public also approve of it in a national referendum.
Yoram Dinstein also points that the GH Law does not employ the word annexation, but some do consider them annexed in consequence of it. Others, [including him] disagree with that approach. But, even if the annexationist interpretation of the Israeli domestic legislation is correct, this would have no impact on the status of the GH pursuant to international law.- in: The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, by Yoram Dinstein or L.Sheleff, Application of Israeli Law to the Golan Heights Is Not Annexation or V.Coussirat-Coustere "Israel et le Golan: Problemes Juridiques Resultant de la Loi du 14 Decembre 1981.
Even: Prime Minister Menachem Begin responded to Amnon Rubinstein's criticism by saying: "you use the word 'annexation', I do not use it".
So the issue is much more complicated than you want to present it.
Oh, about Israeli threats concerning Syria:
The Syrian-Israeli friction continued throughout early 1967. Then, in April, Israel said it would cultivate the entire demilitarized zone between the countries, including land that Syria contended was the property of Arab farmers.
When the Israelis moved a tractor onto the land on April 7, the Syrians fired on them. To retaliate, 70 Israeli fighters flew over Syria and shot down 6 Syrian war planes near Damascus. There was no response from the United Arab Command, an essentially paper military undertaking organized by Nasser at an Arab summit in 1964. Over the next several weeks, Israel threatened Syria. 11 May 1967 gen. Rabis on Israeli radio about attacking Syria. Gen. Aharon Tariv (director of military intelligence] repeated Rabin's threats to Syria to 40 correspondents + taunted Nasser, by claiming that Egypt was weak and that Nassser, "the all-Arab leader" would never intervene. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders did all they could to have their country appear in mortal danger.
The situation worsened when the Soviet Union told the Egyptians that Israel had massed forces on the Syrian border in preparation for a mid-May attack. The United Nations found no evidence of such preparation, but on May 14 Nasser moved troops into the Sinai. Yet U.S. and Israeli intelligence agreed that the action was, in Foreign Minister Abba Eban's words, "no immediate military threat," and several years later, in 1972, Gen. Ezer Weizmann admitted that "we did move tanks to the north after the downing of the aircraft."
"Look, it's possible to talk in terms of 'the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy," Dayan told Tal in 1976. "You don't strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us." According to the published notes, Tal began to remonstrate, "But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and …."Dayan interrupted: "Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."
More: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/folks-talking-palestine#comment-739890 :
Mr. McNamara said that our intelligence differed on some of the facts Prime Minister Eshkol had relied upon; but, more importantly, our appraisal of the facts was different. We thought the Egyptian deployments were defensive in character and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack.
It has been observed that several official Israeli sources admitted after the war that Egypt did not have the intention of attacking Israel.General Rabin, for example, stated: 'I do not believethat Nasser wanted war…." Quigley moreover makes the case that the various steps undertaken by the Arab States were inspired by the concern for an Israeli attack on Syria thus suggesting that Egypt's actions were not offensive in nature, but defensive.In this context, it is worth noting that during the debates on the Six Day War several UN Members mentioned Israeli threats to 'invade' Syria.
Walid on January 26, 2015, 1:36 pm
Zofia, in a nutshell, the 120,000 Syrians chased off the Golan have today become 400,000 refugees living all over Syria. There were also Palestinian refugees from 1948 and these ended up in various refugee camps in Syria.
I fault Syria for having done nothing between 1974 and today to regain its occupied territories. I fault them again for having bought Israeli-grown apples on the Golan (10,000 tons annually until the current civil war) on the excuse that Israeli apple orchards were providing employment to some of the Syrian Druze living on the Golan.
@Walid +1 :) I am with you on that!
Thanks, Zofia!
@ DaBakr " have it your way. its not recognized by most 'international' bodies which but if you want to say the Golan was not effectively annexed by Begin in dec 15, '81 … … etc etc … for 186 words" and ;
NO DOCUMENT showing actual annexation. Amazing! Instead we get 186 words of bullsh*t like " but if you want to say the Golan was not effectively annexed by Begin in dec 15, '81″
Read what I did say , it's still there. What you want me to say is not there.
"and what you consider the Zionist mouthpiece NYT "
Quote me …. thx
Do you ever stop fabricating?
" … NYT needed to retract their dec 14 '81 headline:" Israel Annexes Golan…." then be my guest. Or-maybe you'd prefer a quote from the Gaurdian?"
I'd prefer the annexation document, rather than some ignorant journalist's opinion. In order for it to be legally or even illegally annexed, there must surely be some actual evidence
"Whatever you believe-Unless the actual Syrian people collectively overthrow Assad, kick out aq/is/hz/Irng etc and form their own gov't to negotiate a treaty>"
Uh huh. Can you show where in law a treaty is required? (please no more empty rants)
Meanwhile, under the existing laws Israel agreed to uphold, the Occupying Power is required to withdraw for peace, regardless of which Government administers Syria or Israel. Until such time as Israel adheres to the laws in a pacific manner, Syria has the right to "restore" sovereignty over the territory, by war if necessary ( Schwebel/Lauterpacht/Herzog http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Schwebel )
" …… dream your dreams of 'glory' Hezbollah will visit upon Israel and how Israel has 'nothing' left."
Idiotic fabrications seem to be your forte. Producing an annexation document … not so good…
Chu on January 20, 2015, 5:12 pm
How awkward when you realize that the senior management of CNN is more concerned about anonymous trolls than their seasoned employees. Someone pull the dagger out of his back. I can see why CNN has the lowest ratings on cable news.
just on January 20, 2015, 5:18 pm
Remember their #1 darling~ Wolf
"City of Paris aims to sue Fox News over Islamic 'no-go' zones remarks
After attacks on Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher, Fox News described areas in the city as being under Sharia law."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.638171?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Couldn't happen to a more appropriate network! Go Hildago
As for Clancy, too bad he fell into their schticky trap. CNN should be ashamed.
Remember what happened to Ayman Mohyeldin and Diana Magnay…..perhaps there should be a public outcry here, too.
In2u on January 20, 2015, 8:07 pm
just, this was on fox news a week ago about London and Birmingham in U.K.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/foxnewsfacts-twitter-users-react-with-aplomb-to-news-that-birmingham-is-a-nogo-zone-for-nonmuslims-9971829.html
#FoxNewsFacts
Keith on January 20, 2015, 5:26 pm
What is not being said is the extent to which the social media have augmented the MSM as a significant means of manufacturing consent. Folks who comment on twitter as if it was a personal and private comment are in for a rude awakening. The elites have devoted tremendous resources toward controlling the content of the social media, including monitoring the tweets of high profile people. High profile people who contradict the party line do so at their own peril.
mariapalestina on January 21, 2015, 3:04 pm
I just block them when it becomes clear they are zio-trolls trying to bait me for propaganda purposes. Avi Mayer & that ElderofZiyon guy attacked me ferociously for the following tweet: #Hebdo killings indefensible. Can't help thinking #JSIL Mossad false flag though…"
Even Haaretz quoted me — always makes me proud to get a mention in Haaretz. Since I'm retired from a long career in Hollywood I don't have to worry about losing my livelihood.
CloakAndDagger on January 20, 2015, 5:35 pm
Damn!! Speaking of hasbara, look where our tax dollars (in the form of $3+ billion in aid to Israel) is going! That's in billions with a capital 'B'!
According to the report, the Israeli lobby is among the most well-funded in the EU. The US-based Israel Allies Foundation (IAF), which has an office in Brussels, lists its annual budget at 1.5 billion euro (more than $1.7 billion) and EFI spends approximately 400,000 euro (more than $460,000) annually.Despite this spending, Israel still has to resort to the help of western PR professionals. The report states that in 2011 Israel was looking for PR agencies in ten countries to improve how the world and especially Europe perceives the country. "The unprecedented PR move came amidst an increasingly vocal movement to boycott Israeli products, particularly strong in Europe, and a Palestinian campaign for UN recognition of statehood," the study said, estimating the campaign's budget at some $3.3 million a year.
That's what I was thinking when Phil posted this entire article on the subject!!
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/parliamentary-israelis-suffered
what's the source, C&D? Nice to see folks have picked it up!
I got it from veterans today. I don't believe I am allowed to link to that site.
It's brilliant that it's out there~ esp. in VT!!! 1,2,3,4, who/what are we fighting for!
just, phil linked directly to the corporate europe observatory report (pdf> http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/20150120_spindoctors_mr.pdf ), the same source cited by http://sputniknews.com/ which VT copy-pasted/republished.(i think, that's who they credit anyway)
@ annie
Thanks, Annie…..I guess I missed that! I am still gobsmacked over the entire report. So gobsmacked that I've already informed several people about it already.
just and C&D, we got the report via an israeli friend in europe who sent it out on several bds movement listserves.
A good friend indeed~ thanks, Annie. :-)
RoHa on January 20, 2015, 8:20 pm
"1,2,3,4, who/what are we fighting for!"
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn.
Next stop is Te he ran.
(Thanks, Country Joe.)
"Next stop is Te he ran"
I'm not worried, they'll never draft me. I'm only 18, got a ruptured spleen, and always carry a purse. I'm blind as a bat, my feet are flat, and my asthma's getting worse.
ritzl on January 20, 2015, 7:22 pm
Yeah, C&D. It's not just aid. It's a racket.
Like *just* said, it's really good to see the circularity laid out in detail.
Aid→profits→political contributions→aid…
Yeah, that's what pisses me off. The whole idea of checks-and-balance between the executive, legislature, and judiciary did not take into account the possibility of wholesale corruption. In the UK, the queen can dissolve parliament. We have no such failsafe in our constitution – a major oversight by our founders. Now what do we do? Depend on rigged elections?
Kay24 on January 20, 2015, 11:07 pm
If true, that is indeed an amazing amount. This playing victim seems to have good rewards!
However, despite all their efforts and pouring in millions to support and protect their cause, Israel still remains one of the most disliked nations. Their lobbies are mostly successful in the US, where Congress dances the Hora to their tune, the EU nations have even had non binding votes in their parliaments, recognizing the State of Palestine. Now that is something we will never witness in our lifetime in the US Congress.
CloakAndDagger on January 21, 2015, 10:17 am
The things I could do with a budget of $1.7 billion!
You would think a journalist of his experience would know that freedom of speech only applies to some sorts of speech.
Mind you, it isn't easy to keep up with what is and what isn't permitted. It seems that "ableist" comments are not allowed.
What the bugger does "ableist" mean?
Is "cripple" now a banned word? I can't see anything derogatory about using the word in its literal sense, and if it is being used metaphorically ("mental cripple") it is intended to be derogatory.
Are we not allowed to insult the intelligence of others?
If we are not, most television programmes, news broadcasts, newspapers, Hollywood movies, etc., will have to be banned, and I will be struck dumb.
An "ableist" of course, is somebody who is no good at raising Cain.
Oh, wait. I mean "dumb" in the sense of "mute".
You can draw your own conclusions about whether the other sense of the word applies.
Sulphurdunn on January 20, 2015, 6:26 pm
This is very strange. The term "cripple" is often used in zoology to describe some of the easiest victims of predators. Among most herd animals, such unfortunate creatures usually move along the periphery to avoid the jostling at the interior of the herd, and so, become the preferred prey of predators. By being sacrificed, they contribute to both the health and survival of the herd and its predators. It is obvious this is what the journalist was referring to. Unfortunately, he was apparently a cripple on the edge of the herd himself and didn't realize it.
Herds are for chumps. "Yarding" is the only way to go. And even that is risky.
eljay on January 20, 2015, 9:08 pm
I must be missing something here.
Based on the information in this thread and here at Elder of Ziyon, it looks like Clancy made an assertion re. the Charlie Hebdo incident, was challenged and went off the rails.
He may have been entirely correct in stating that the people he outed as hasbarists are indeed hasbarists, but IMO that had nothing to do with the challenge to his initial assertion, so why even go there?
Should his outburst have cost him his job? I don't know. But it seems like he created his own mess by not sticking to the facts surrounding his initial assertion (and either backing up his statement, clarifying it or withdrawing it).
It would have been nice if his colleagues stuck up for him,, showed support, and agreeing there is a huge discrepancy in the way they can cover almost everything, but cannot criticize one nation or their people. We all know, that they are fully aware of this unbelievable situation, and that they dare not risk losing their wonderful jobs. He was right in clearly calling those who are trained and organized to lie and attack those who criticize Israel, the despicable hasbara, and CNN should have stood up for him, and not insisted he stays. CNN is a totally biased network like most others, and seems to have a obsession to protect the zionists. It is people like Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr, and others who get fed up of the situation and dares to speak out, much to their peril!
Walid on January 21, 2015, 11:36 am
Another great and fair CNN journalist that occasionally took risks in the way he was reporting on the Palestinian conflict that could have landed him in trouble with the bad guys was Ben Wedeman. He is currently posted out of harm's way in Rome. Wedeman's and Clancy's approach to the news were very much alike.
i don't see Clancy-a 34 year veteran of CNN- as any kind of "risk" taker when it comes to his reporting. And if he was a 'friend' of the Palestinian cause-he was foolish to give up his tenure for an incident that had little or nothing to do with the Palestinians.
Kathleen on January 21, 2015, 12:01 am
Who makes these decisions at CNN? Now there is a news story that CNN will not cover. Wonder if Melissa Harris Perry or some other host would pick up this story.
Clancy can get a better paying job at Al Jazeera.
crone on January 21, 2015, 1:21 am
So, why do we allow it? It being the power of the Lobby…
Just turn the friggin' TV off… I did… 7 years ago. Haven't missed a thing.
Here's some context to Clancy's resignation from CNN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN#Controversy
bilal a on January 21, 2015, 7:38 am
Post Paris:
Speaking to the Christian self-defence militia known as 'anti-balaka' (anti-machete), Samba-Panza said: 'Show your support for my nomination by giving the strong signal of laying down your weapons.
Earlier in the month horrific footage emerged from Bangui of Magloire eating the leg of a Muslim who, according to the BBC, was hauled from a bus, battered and then stabbed before being set on fire.
A French soldier looks on as the body of one of the lynched Muslim men burns. Photo: AP
http://www.thedailystar.net/car-cannibal-eats-2nd-muslim-in-2-weeks-60856
Ugh! What a horrible article to start my day with!
"Earlier in the month horrific footage emerged from Bangui of Magloire eating the leg of a Muslim who"
Teams of anthropophagists should be assigned to study this self-serving phenomenon. Sure puts me off my feed.
ymedad on January 23, 2015, 3:02 am
I was just wondering about this: "On his blog Elder has also advertised a job opening with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.". If I found an ad, for example, for viagra at your site, could I assume you are suffering erectile dysfunctionalism? Is there an automotic identification inherent? If anti-Semites leave comments here, are your anti-Semitic? Whta was the purpose of your observation?
annie on January 23, 2015, 11:53 am
cool how you've juxtaposed the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs w/viagra. ;) that's quite a mental exercise.
Whta was the purpose of your observation?
what's the purpose of yours?
If anti-Semites leave comments here, are your anti-Semitic?
generally they don't make it thru moderation. but if we ran an advertisement that was anti semitic and profited from it then yes, i think one could draw that conclusion.
Support Mondoweiss's independent journalism today
Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.
All Materials © 2020 Mondoweiss


Sorry Prince William, I can't today!
October I seemed to neglect the blog a little bit. Well, not a little bit, a lot! But November is a new month and I am back at it.
In my grandfather's most recent interview with Greta Van Susteren, she asked him to reflect on his lifetime and wondered what he would change, if he could. As his granddaughter, the answer was shocking.
He responded that he would spend more time praying and studying the Scripture.
To be honest, in that moment, I felt ashamed. There are no other words for it. If Billy Graham doesn't believe he spent enough time praying and meditating, what about the rest of us?
Even though my grandfather is about to turn ninety-three years old, I am often challenged by his example.
Truth is, not one person will ever spend enough time with the Lord. How can we put a limit on time spent with the Creator of the universe, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords?
All day, every day, we have excuses for why we haven't spent time with the Lord. We live in a fast-paced, demanding society that pulls us in all directions, and most of the time we have reasonable excuses. But one day, when we stand before the Lord in all of His heavenly glory, what will those excuses sound like?
How many worthless hours of my life did I spend in front of the television or computer? How many hours of my life did I spend fixing my hair and makeup? How many hours did I spend cleaning my house? Why did I spend days reading meaningless books?
At the end of the day, when I finally lay my head on my nice Tempur-Pedic pillow, many times I realize I only gave my Heavenly Father twenty minutes of the day. And often, I give myself a pat on the back for that. Twenty minutes a day is probably more than most people, right? But who am I kidding? What are twenty minutes compared to the accumulated time I spend browsing the internet, stalking people on Facebook, or flipping through television channels?
In a recent Bible study, we asked the question, "Why is it so easy for us to put the Lord on the back burner every morning?" Well, I personally believe it is because we know we won't experience immediate repercussions. It is not like a job – if we don't perform we are fired, or like school – if we don't study we fail the test. He isn't going to scorn us for showing up late. No; we know that God will be there. He will still wait for us with His loving arms wide open when we decide to return.
But come on people, if Prince William was waiting for us each day, eager to be our friend so he could comfort us and love on us, what would we be doing? We would spend hours trying to figure out what to wear and days researching his interests so we would know everything about him. Heaven knows we wouldn't say, "Sorry Prince William, I was too busy today. Maybe tomorrow." No; we would run towards him. But let's be honest, Prince William doesn't wait for anyone, he would never meet with just any commoner for tea, and he wouldn't love us if we stood him up every day.
But we already have it so much better. We can talk with the King of Kings everyday. We don't have to spend hours getting ready; we can come just the way we are. And He wants us to get to know Him. He wants to spend time with us. And better than Prince William, He wants to spend more than twenty minutes with us.
Isn't that the beauty of serving a God who extends grace and mercy? He could've made us love Him. We could've been forced to worship Him, but that wouldn't have been love. Instead, we have to choose to love Him. It's a choice. And it is a choice we must make every day.