This is a review of two articles
pertaining to the same topic from two different sources. Since the topic is
written about by two authors representing two varying view points and two
separate news agencies, a short writing about each author and their respective
news outlets and current careers, the rhetorical nature of their articles and
my opinion will follow a summary of each article. The articles in question are:
“A Speech Netanyahu Must Give” – WSJ – Bret Stephens – 02/04/15 and “A Bad
Mistake” - Thomas L. Friedman – 02/04/15.
First
we will take a brief look at each author. Bret Stephens is a 2013 Pulitzer
Prize winning author who currently writes for the Wall Street Journal. His
Pulitzer was in recognition of his writing about American foreign policy. He is
the current foreign affairs columnist and deputy editorial page editor mostly
writing about European and Asian affairs. Not surprising to me in the least by
the tenor of the reviewed article, and his recent trip to the HBO show Real
Time with Bill Maher is the fact that he was the Editor and Chief for the
Jerusalem Post from 2002 to 2004. The next author is Thomas Friedman. He has
brought home three Pulitzer Prizes in his career and currently writes for the
New York Times, mostly writing about foreign affairs, global trade, economic,
environmental and Middle Eastern issues. All three of his Pulitzers come from
writing about the war in Lebanon, Israeli affairs, and terrorism.
Each
of these authors writes for a different type of news organization. The New York
Times is considered by most to have a Liberal slant and is currently
shareholder owned. However, one shareholder, Carlos Slim has invested millions
in the paper since 2009 and is Mexico’s largest telecommunications CEO. The
Wall Street Journal is another news outlet and it is considered by many to have
a conservative slant in its approach to writing. A 2004 study called WSJ the most
liberal outlet, but subsequent acquisition by News Corp and Rupert Murdoch in
2007 has decidedly changed that. Murdoch has been sued in this and other
nations for false stories, theft of information and several other things I find
odd to be associated with “news”.
The
articles represent their respective authors and their outlets well. The
Stephens article talks about how there have been nothing but problems for and
with Israel since Barack Obama took office. Stating Democrats are losing
support for Israel and that the President picked a fight. He goes into
declaration of a Palestinian State, settlement freezing demands and how those
things put Mr. Netanyahu in a bad position with his conservative party. He
brings up continued talks with Iran; basically stating that talking to Iran
instead of bombing them puts Israel at risk. He goes into some detail about
talks, proposals and plans of action. How a veto of a Bill designed to stop
Iranian nuclear ambitions would occur, and how this President pays all favors
back with “neglect and derision”. How Obama does everything for only his own
political convenience, and doesn’t care about the political needs of others.
Last and certainly not least is the “weapons of mass destruction” mantra that
no good article from a Conservative can do without.
The
next article by Thomas Friedman speaks of “cooked up” addresses to Congress and
how dangerous it could be for Israeli- American relations. He even cites Chris
Wallace by saying, “not a usual critic of Israel, who gutsily said of the Bibi
invite on Friday, Jan. 23: “To make you get a sense of really how, forgive me,
wicked, this whole thing is, the Secretary of State John Kerry met with the
Israeli ambassador to the United States for two hours on Tuesday, and Ron
Dermer, the Israeli ambassador, according to the State Department, never
mentioned the fact that Netanyahu was in negotiations and finally agreed to
come to Washington, not to see the president, but to go to Capitol Hill, speak
to a joint session of Congress and criticize the president’s policy. I have to
say I’m shocked.” Would this happen in Israel and would it be accepted if their
Parliament did the same thing? He goes into Sheldon Adelson and the big money
on the right and how they seem to live in a bubble because of the poor taste
and precedent being set by this action. This has even caused Democrats, who
would have supported the Republican bill previously mentioned, to jump ship.
Netanyahu’s concerns are legitimate, but he is forcing a helpful hand.
My
opinion, neither are completely right, but Friedman is more sensible. First
let’s talk politics of the situation. Has this ever happened in the past? No,
it has not, and I dug deeply to find the instance. I understand the fears about
Iran, but report after report states they are years away from any nuclear
dreams becoming realizations. These reports are from the same people who said
there were no WMD in the Iraq, and they were right then too. No anti-Iranian/
terrorist policy will ever trump our oil policy. We are always going to try to
make friends with oil producers if possible. I do not understand why Mr.
Netanyahu would want to bite the hand that keeps him obviously so well fed. We
have put billions into their settlements, armaments, infrastructure, diplomacy
and nation in general. I for one do not support Israel. I am of the opinion the
lines were redrawn post WW2 to placate a people who were terrorizing the Brits
in Palestine and wanted a land of their own. We have forced the hand of most
every leader in the region to leave Israel alone, and most to even recognize
Israel as a State and legitimate at that. I would not encourage our leaders to
do the same in another nation. Even though this is something we would do in
other lands. Have things really been that bad between Obama and Israel? I don’t
think so. How did he get the country's highest civilian award, the Presidential
Medal of Distinction from Israel? Why did they call him "a true friend of
the State of Israel" and noted the administration's support for the Iron
Dome missile defense system. If you can win the same award as Kissinger, you
can’t be too Liberal. I am confused. It seems Netanyahu needs political clout,
and Obama says it isn’t our custom to do that before elections in allied
nations, and he is right. So, Republicans will go against all known protocol,
as they have done several times with this President, and invite trouble to
their doorstep in the form of the Israeli Prime minister.
No comments:
Post a Comment