The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Friday, March 20, 2015


The Obama administration has perfected a technique called "controversializing." In a nutshell (I'll discuss this idea in more detail my next post), it's a PR scheme that tries to make any negative report or commentary, any bad news for the administration, and anyone who reports the former "controversial." This is done by suggesting that reports of the scandal or event are "phony," or "old news" and that the people who report them are "politically motivated," or "conspiracy theorists."

Obama's trained hamsters in the media have adopted the administration's "controversializing" strategy, doing the administration's PR work for it. This has been exemplified in recent days with the vicious anti-Netanyahu and anti-Israel rhetoric coming from supposedly objective reporters.

Mark Stein notes that this is not something exclusively American. He writes:
The media are also taking Netanyahu's re-election badly. Who said this?
Harper Backs Netanyahu's Controversial Israel Victory
And who said this?
"Over a million Arabs take part in Middle East's most democratic elections today"; "The Arabs in Israel are the only Middle East Arab group that practices true democracy"..."Israel is the world's most vibrant democracy."
The first is the reaction of The Globe And Mail, Canada's newspaper of record. The second is Ghanem Nuseibeh, a Palestinian supporter of the Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog. It comes to something when the Palestinians sound less unhinged about Netanyahu's victory than the western media do.

What's "controversial" about the Israeli election result other than that it's not the one The Globe And Mail [or most Western media] wanted?

Isn't there anything a wee bit "controversial" about the Palestinian election? Oh, that's right: They haven't held any for a decade or so - Abbas and his fellow Fatah kleptocrats in the West Bank because they want to continue bulking up their Swiss bank accounts with generous Euro-American subsidies, and Hamas in Gaza because they regard democracy as Erdogan in Turkey put it, merely a train you ride until it gets you to where you want to go. Which it did back in 2006.
So ... here we have the media in full throat about the "controversial" democratic election conducted without incident by a staunch US ally. The same media insists that a "two state solution" is absolutely, positively, unequivocally essential to world peace and any reservations about it are ... well ... unacceptable and controversial.

But a two state solution implies that the entity other than Israel reject terror, reject it's eliminationist rhetoric against Israel, reject the launching of thousands of rockets into Israel, reject a virulently ant-Semitic school curriculum, reject the terror group Hamas, reject the rampant corruption that leaves its leaders with great wealth and its people impoverished. The entity must also prove that it can run a civil, non-violent society. The palestinians have done NONE of those things. You'd think maybe calls for a two-state solution when one of the parties not only doesn't reject violence, or corruption, or bigotry but applauds it, would itself be "controversial." Not a chance.