The logical fallacies of Benjamin Netanyahu

netanyahu-ethnic-cleansing-palestine-mondoweissAs Donald Trump continues to campaign using logical fallacies as his daily weapons (e.g. To deflect attention away from his admission that President Obama is a U.S. Citizen, he told followers that the whole idea was Hillary’s in the first place – classic), there is a more ruthless practitioner of fallacious reasoning across the sea. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu, and his latest got virtually zero coverage by media in the U.S.

An important part of Israeli hasbara (official propaganda) is a relentless dissemination of misinformation to American supporters. After all, the United States provides $10 million a day in military aid to Israel, so it’s understandable that the Israeli government would feel obligated to provide “evidence” that the money is being well-spent. The problem is that the money can’t be morally justified, and so the Prime Minister must twist the facts to fit a tired, old narrative.

Netanyahu regularly produces English language videos for consumption here in the U.S. These videos bend current events to shape the narrative that poor, defenseless Israel will ALWAYS need the support of friends to prevent another holocaust. Meanwhile, the IDF continues to perpetrate genocidal crimes against Palestinian neighbors in an illegal land grab in the West Bank. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Those crimes involve “extrajudicial executions” (what we call murder) of Palestinians, the terrorizing of legal residents, and the continued bulldozing of Palestinian homes in order to build Israeli settlements and expand the territory it polices. It is the systematic destruction of a people and their culture in order to remove them entirely from the land. There’s a word for this, and it’s called “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing.”

And yet, in this latest video to Americans, Netanyahu uses the same term in describing the Palestinian wishes to remove the illegal settlements. The Palestinians, he says, want to cleanse the land of Jews! This is a logical fallacy. It’s very clever, and we buy it almost completely.

Netanyahu was roundly criticized for this video – even in his own country – for it’s an obviously outrageous claim, especially in light of the evidence to the contrary. The State Department responded immediately, but again, this was not covered in the U.S.

So we have seen the Israeli prime minister’s video. We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank. We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful. Settlements are a final status issue that must be resolved in negotiations between the parties. We share the view of every past U.S. administration and the strong consensus of the international community that ongoing settlement activity is an obstacle to peace. We continue to call on both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to the two-state solution.

Look, let’s be real. There will be no two-state solution in the Holy Land. The best we can hope for – perhaps generations from now – is a peaceful solution that includes both Israelis and Palestinians under a single government that doesn’t discriminate against either. South Africa is the model, but that country was able to get past logical fallacies in facing the reality of its situation.

Israel’s current government is simply incapable of such.

The false narrative of right wing media

(Excerpted from my forthcoming book “How Jesus Joined The GOP”)

In the early 1980s – during my days with CBN – we innovated “TV Journalism With a Different Spirit,” a news animal that sang a different song from others in the journalism world, whether television or print. We knew what we were doing, and it was very clever. In the process, we built the philosophical model for Fox News and many others. Here’s how it worked:

The idea that the press represented only a liberal perspective was developed in the days of Richard Nixon, specifically by his vice president, Spiro Agnew. Agnew argued that the President ought to be able to speak directly to the American people without going through what he viewed as a liberal filter, one that would distort Nixon’s views through its blurred lens. Nixon’s was the first conservative administration in the golden age of television, and it struggled with its inability to control the message during an incredibly volatile time in history. Many others took up the claim in the wake of Watergate. After all, only a political opponent would strive to take down a sitting President, surely not a press that advertised itself as objective.

These complaints fell on deaf ears, because the complainers lacked a media stage from which to make their case. As a result, they had to rely on that same blurred lens, so efforts to “speak against liberals” were dead before they started. We had such a stage at CBN, one of the original ten transponders on the first RCA communications satellite, Satcom 1. Moreover, ours was a video show, and we had the production chops to create whatever we wanted along the artificial plane known as political perspective. It didn’t matter that the press didn’t really belong on this plane, only that it was convenient for our purposes, which we claimed to be preparing the world for the return of Jesus Christ.

So we publicly moved “the press” in its entirety to the left on this political plane in order to insert a convenient fence on its right edge. We placed ourselves (and the ilk of Rush Limbaugh, etc.) to the right of that fence, which gave the appearance of the bigger overall culture being represented under the banner of “news.” After all, most people were either liberal or conservative politically, and politics – or influencing politics – was our real goal. I can’t possibly overstate this reality. You don’t change the world by changing the press; you simply must make the case that the press isn’t neutral, and the rest is easy. The press, of course, helped us with this, because it was easy to pick news coverage hooks that represented a more progressive view of culture for us to hone in on. We were free to assign bias even in cases where the press was simply doing its job.

Dog bites man, it’s not news. Man bites dog, it is news. This simple old metaphor points to the false narrative we created, because the very definition of news is tied to that which is different, that which is, well, “new.” And new always means progressive, for basic conservative logic is tied to the status quo and the maintenance of tradition and its accompanying hierarchies. Many if not most journalists are educated, passionate about their trade, and ethical when it comes to the rules of professional observation. Only in the sense that some of this can be applied to “liberalism” is the press liberal. It’s a fake moniker given to them without their consent by people who need it to be that way in order to fit their own self-serving narrative. There is no conspiracy. Journalists don’t regularly gather to discuss how they’re going to manipulate unknowing masses with lies and deceit. That is much more likely to be found with those who claim participation in “right wing media.”

Evangelical Christians almost always leave out the original pioneers in the pro-life movement, the Catholics. This is an important element in understanding right wing media, for the Catholic Church is hardly conservative. In addition to calling out the pro-choicers for what was actually taking place in the wake of Roe v Wade, Catholics also pleaded the cause of those “unwanted” babies after they were born, and also opposed the death penalty. That, my friends, is the very definition of pro-life. Catholics also tended to vote for the left, so their voice in the debate about abortion carried far more weight than that of any other group. But that voice didn’t fit the narrative of the right, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In seizing upon abortion as an Evangelical Christian cause, the political right gained an emotional grassroots appeal to which it wasn’t entitled. The same thing applies to many of the right’s causes, because political power is the real goal.

The mere suggestion that manipulation can result in rolling back laws that are tagged as culturally offensive to some is folly and a chasing of the wind. This includes the idea that if only conservatives could appoint enough Supreme Court justices, they will eventually overturn Roe v Wade. The odds of this ever happening are remarkably small for many reasons, and wishers would do well to consider anyway that the original opinion in Roe v Wade was written by conservative justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee to the court. Nevertheless, right wing media needs to continually dangle this carrot in order to maintain the hyperbole in its claims as members of the press, albeit with a different worldview.

Right wing media is not, nor will it ever be, a part of the press, for its core purpose is the manipulation of culture through distortion, the very thing it assigns to the so-called “liberal” media. Moreover, many contemporary right wing media outlets are nothing more than political operatives with the sole purpose of repeating over and over again their purely political arguments. To this end, nothing is out-of-bounds, for baseless and provable lies are fair game in a sea of ethical emptiness. Again, the irony is that these groups practice out loud the very things they accuse their political opponents of doing in disguise, as if that somehow justifies deliberately “balancing” the public square by any means necessary. Even when bonafide “fact checker” organizations prove beyond a reasonable doubt the falsity of certain claims, these political hacks continue to repeat the allegations, presumably because they feel under no obligation to retract or otherwise accept responsibility for such lies. Moreover, they know that as long as they can keep the drum beating, there are people “out there” who’ve been trained to listen regardless of the evidence.

The press is a political animal only insofar as it covers politics, and even I have to admit there can be mischief in this particular hen house. NYU journalism professor and author Jay Rosen has been studying this for 30 years and refers to the Washington Press Corps in particular as the “national press or political press.” He argues strongly for transparency and accountability and against opacity and demagoguery. He’s also acutely aware of the difference between “journalism” and this “political press.”

If your job is to make the case, win the negotiations, decide what the community should do, or maintain morale, that is one kind of work. If your job is to tell people what’s going on, and equip them to participate without illusions, that is a very different kind of work.

The press is the latter and politics is the former. Right wing media, however, claims to be the latter while functioning as the former, and this is why its narrative is a fraud. Again, there is no such thing as “right wing media.” It is entirely political, and we shouldn’t stand for it. Drudge is not a journalist. Hannity is not a journalist. Limbaugh is not a journalist. A thousand websites with “news” in their titles are not practicing journalism whatsoever. They are like the local advertiser who presents his commercial message during the 6 o’clock news disguised as a news bulletin. There are ethical rules against this, but in desperate times, there are also exceptions.

Finally, nearly every attempt to create a “left wing media” has failed, the most visible being Al Franken’s program on the Air America Network. Billed as an alternative to conservative talk radio, Franken’s show never garnered the ratings of his counterparts on the right and certainly didn’t inspire a generation of progressive radio talk shows. While there are some successful progressive programs today, there doesn’t appear to be a wellspring of an audience for this fare, perhaps because it’s so obviously there only to counter the right.

Right or left, these “media” are political activists and not members of any journalistic effort whatsoever. We’ve got our work cut out for us, if we are to educate the public about how they’ve been duped and manipulated by smart political operatives, those who only have their own best interests in mind. We pioneered this in Virginia Beach, and while our motives may have seemed to be just at the time, the truth is we were just another group of social engineers with the political motivations of power and influence.

Chapter One of my new book

As political events began to take shape last year in the U.S. and specifically with the candidacy of Donald Trump, I began gathering all of the documents from my days as Pat Robertson’s producer in the 1980s. I could sense what was happening and felt a sense of responsibility for at least some of it, for as producer of The 700 Club, I had played a key role in our efforts to influence Republican Party politics. I began writing my story – the story of How Jesus Joined The GOP. The book is about to be published, but the need to get at least some of the information into the public debate right now is great. Hence, I’m publishing Chapter One here today for your perusal.

Chapter One: The Seeds of Modern Discontent

If I must publish the whole book online, I’ll do it, for the people addicted to Donald Trump are ushering in something they really don’t understand. Trump supporters represent a serious and significant threat to freedom, and the sad thing is that most of these people formed the core of our audience target back in the early 80s. The fears they express were planted by us, and while I’m not saying it was insincere, cynical, or corrupt, I am stating that it was a deliberate attempt at social engineering. People need to know this, for we preached what I’m calling “the gospel of self.”

I hope you will take the time to read this, and that you will share it with your friends.

ISIS: Enemy or Frenemy?

I have long been confused about the terror organization that calls itself ISIS. Something stinks to high heaven about this group, and it has nothing to do with its public image and/or its terror campaigns. Nothing makes sense about it, and despite attempts by many to explain the group to us, its behavior just doesn’t match up. So let’s ask a few questions.

Why is ISIS missing its core target?Here’s a cartoon by an Arab political cartoonist that’s been around for about two years. The original cartoon (top) lacks the ISIS label and the Star of David on the terrorist’s headgear, but the rest of the two are identical. The one in English was just recently posted on social media, one presumes, to make a point. As the cartoon illustrates, terror has struck everywhere over the past two years except the stated target of terrorist organized crime. Why is this?

I’m sure that many will point out that Israel has its own terror problems with Palestinians, but that argument is irrelevant as it relates to organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. These groups are getting the vast preponderance of media coverage worldwide. Besides, the terror that Israel deals with directly is internally incited and very different. The best Israel can do with ISIS is publicly align itself with those who are cleaning up terror’s aftermath by stating their shared suffering. After all, an Arab is an Arab and a Muslim is a Muslim, so it’s all the same, right? Well, no.

So why is it that these terror organizations, whose sworn enemy is Israel, constantly direct their terror elsewhere? It’s a question you must ask yourself as you study global politics.

Another argument could be made that these groups are actually targeting “the West” or “Western values.” This, too, is irrelevant in light of the most recent spate of attacks, which are against Muslims and Muslim targets. A highly speculative CNN article today on the bombings in Saudi Arabia – especially the one at the holy city of Medina – describes ISIS’ activity over the last month.

While there has been no claim of responsibility so far for the Saudi attacks, analysts believe that, like a number of other attacks this Ramadan, they could be the work of ISIS or its sympathizers.

For the vast majority of Muslims, the holy month is a time for fasting, prayer and good actions, but Islamist terror groups see it as an especially auspicious time to launch attacks.

ISIS, facing the loss of its territory in Iraq, had called on its followers to launch attacks this Ramadan, and the response has been a string of deadly incidents around the world.

As well as the attacks in Baghdad, Istanbul, Dhaka and Saudi Arabia, extremists have struck in Yemen, Jordan and Lebanon.

Last month, a gunman killed 49 in a nightclub in Orlando, Florida; an attacker killed a police commander and his partner in France and four Israelis were killed at a Tel Aviv market.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for some of these attacks, and authorities believe other perpetrators were inspired by the terror group.

The article cites “analysts” and “authorities” without identifying them, and don’t even get me started on lobbing the Tel Aviv deaths in with the bunch. The point is that ISIS is targeting Muslims, and that makes no sense whatsoever in light of the global fear of destroying the West and Israel. The cartoon nails it beautifully, and the whole thing makes me suspicious.

We cannot look away from what was happening in the Middle East when ISIS first burst on the scene. Let’s go back and review all that for a moment. Remember the beheadings and Jihadi John? The first 75 beheadings were Syrian soldiers. That took place on July 25, 2014. I remember that these videos and the ones that followed were very well-produced for television and that the group used “teaser” promotional announcements to advise what was coming next. For a group angry with “the West,” it sure borrowed from our know-how in the TV production practices it used.

But there’s something very important about that date, because Israel was being bombarded with negative worldwide attention for its inhuman activity in Gaza, where IDF war planes and troops killed over 2,000 Palestinians, including 500 children. Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” began on July 8, 2014. Ground troops were added on July 17, 2014. As the world watched in horror, pressure from governments, charities, rights organizations, and many others began to threaten the moral high ground that Israel claimed in the annihilation of Gaza. But the heinous videos from ISIS – just one week later – immediately took the pressure off Israel by putting the focus back on so-called “Islamic terrorism.” Each ISIS event seemed worse than the one before, including burning a Jordanian military pilot alive. The group augmented its horrendous behavior by destroying sacred antiquities, and suddenly the horror of Gaza was but a distant memory.

Convenient? Coincidence? “God?”

And so we have to ask ourselves, “What gives?” Who’s telling the truth, if there really is any to tell? Why are all these bombings aimed away from the core target of organized terror? Will we ever truly know whose fingerprints are on the business and organizational plans of ISIS?

I wouldn’t count on it.

Of course evangelicals can vote for Trump; they just shouldn’t

Donald TrumpEvangelical Christians face a quite a quandary this election season, because they’ve painted themselves into a narrow corner when it comes to politics. It’s the right-wing conservative way or no way, and that forces them into the camp of Donald Trump, a slick, self-promoter with questionable business and personal ethics. Mr. Trump also comes off as pretentious, racist, bigoted, and uninformed, and watching Evangelicals rationalize their support is frustrating, confusing, and sad. Were it not, it might actually be humorous.

Believe it or not, the biggest issue for these Christians is who will appoint perhaps as many as four Supreme Court justices over the next four years. That’s it. That’s issue number one for Evangelicals. This is what Christians are willing to roll the dice over in electing a man who admits he will stretch the truth to get what he wants. Read his book. He’s a salesman for whom it’s all about closing the deal, not about how you get there, and that disqualifies him for anything other than being one of the globalist corporate menaces that he accuses others of being. Anyone who believes anything that comes out of his mouth is dangerously misled, and that includes my Christian friends.

jackgrahamLast week, Mr. Trump met with certain hand-picked Evangelical Christian leaders (who were publicly referred to as “Christian Leaders,” a bad joke) where he selected a board of advisors and spoke to them about why he’s the only candidate on their side. In the wake of that meeting, evangelical pastor Jack Graham of the mega Prestonwood Baptist Church in Dallas published an article titled “Of course, Evangelicals can vote for Trump.” He gave three reasons why “I could easily vote for Mr. Trump this November without endorsing him, his behavior, his language or his “temperament,” adding, “I would vote for Donald Trump because he has convinced me he will fight for the issues that matter most to conservatives.”

He then lists these three issues: the Supreme Court, abortion, and religious liberty. Pastor Jack notes that Mr. Trump’s opponent “promises” she won’t support any of those, and so he’s willing to roll the dice on everything else required of the President of the United States, just because he’s got us covered on the Supreme Court.

If this is at all representative of other Evangelicals (it is), then the faith has gone completely mad. I got into a discussion about this with Christians yesterday on Facebook, and here’s a portion of it:

LL: And to me, SCOTUS is the ball game when you will have as many as 3-4 justices appointed that could affect and dictate policy for the next 50 years — and on much more than just abortion. I’ll pass on Hillary, whose intentions are clear, and go w Trump, whose stated intentions I can agree with…

Me: L, it would be more honest if you were to say “go w Trump, whose stated intentions I can agree with, no matter what.” I appreciate your candid position otherwise.

LL: Not sure I understand your first point, but thanks for the rest…

Me: That you’re fully prepared and content with whatever might happen with him as long as you get your Supreme Court justices.

LL: Let’s say I am willing to take my chances with Trump, and consider it a calculated risk. I am also about derailing globalism, and feel he is our best chance for that as well.

‘Lest you think I was speaking with a fool, this person is very intelligent and has done her homework. However, she believes Mr. Trump is a fine family man and would give her the Supreme Court justices she requires. Where did she do her research? I don’t know. Most of the conservative talking points come from the many loud fearmongers who filter everything through a sky-is-falling lens that distorts the reality of liberalism. But I digress.

Donald Trump’s very own life has proven him to be a tickler of the ears, and he admits as much in his book. Remember, he’s trying to sell us on the idea of himself as U.S. President:

The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular.

I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.

He is utterly untrustworthy, my dear Christian friends, and even if he’ll give you conservative justices, there’s no assurance they’ll be approved. Even if he’s pro-life, there’s no assurance that will mean anything in real life. And even if he is stating how much he supports Christianity (not religious freedom), there’s zero assurance he’ll ever be able to act upon it. Of course, I don’t believe he ever would anyway.

He just wants to close the deal, and we can’t let him.

The turd in terror’s punchbowl

TerrorismThe horrible terrorist act in Orlando a week ago brought out the predictable finger-pointing and then some. The concept of assigning blame has become so routine with the press in every event today that contemporary consumers of “news” must think it’s one of the five W’s of journalism. Oh I suppose an argument could be made that this is the “why” of news reporting, but it’s way beyond that. In a world dominated by process and planning, we are driven to “find out” every causal factor, because that’s the way we attack human nature. There are no accidents in life anymore, for example, because everything is cause and effect.

But life isn’t NASA, and the press certainly doesn’t function as engineers.

I’ve seen just about everything associated as causal with this Orlando night club mess. The poor AR-15 assault rifle is the problem. It’s the NRA. Homophobia. Homosexuality. President Obama, Mental illness. Slipping through the cracks in the FBI terror watch list. And my favorite – Islam – and this particular voice is getting louder and louder, led by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. I’m also reading a lot of “Islam needs to reform” in order to put an end to “these radicals.” Somehow, we naively believe that “the problem” is a religion that has been so demonized by certain forms of Christianity that “it just has to be” the cause! You cannot possibly understand how foolish this assertion appears to Muslims, especially in the Middle East.

In the blaming of Islam, observers are ignoring the great turd in the punchbowl while complaining about the less-than-fruity taste of the liquid. Never – and I mean NEVER – does anyone in the practice of explaining events relating to terrorism ever mention the role of Israel. This American ally is conveniently shoved aside as irrelevant in even in-depth commentary about “why do they hate us.” “Islamic terrorism” may have Palestinian roots, but that’s as far as it goes. Folks, this is one of the great magic tricks of modern life, and it’s time we all stopped pretending that God Himself resurrected Israel, because Jesus is about to come back. This, of course, will automatically be labeled antisemitic, and I’m prepared for that. Having Palestinian family in Jordan doesn’t mean I’m antisemitic; it just means my window on the world is perhaps a little different than yours.

The Shirky Principle, named for NYU professor Clay Shirky, states that “institutions will always try and preserve the problem for which they are the solution.” Zionism was implemented in the Middle East by the United Nations – led by the U.S. – after World War II and the horror of the Holocaust. Israel is considered the solution to the problem of real or perceived antisemitism in the world, but the Shirky Principle reveals that buried beneath all the defensive rhetoric and political propaganda is a real need to keep the problem alive, ‘lest the reason for Israel cease to exist. You see, nobody consulted with the land owners in the region at the time – Arab Muslims for whom the area has profound spiritual meaning – if it would be alright to forcibly remove them. Israel claimed all the good lands and, most importantly, the water rights. Today, Israel functions as an apartheid state, continuing to claim territory that doesn’t belong to it and brutalizing the Palestinian Arabs in the process.

Israel is at the very center of the matter of blame for terror in the Middle East and beyond, and if we’re going to be serious in our attempts to find a solution to future Orlandos, we’re going to have to stop pretending otherwise. Why do they hate us? Because “we” drove the process of Zionism and continue to pour billions of dollars in aid into Israel year after year.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent his condolences over the Orlando massacre in a video to Americans. A careful listen reveals lots of references to terror his country is familiar with – “radical Islamic terrorism.” It ends with this remarkable statement: “We need to stand united, resolute in the belief that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, regardless of their race, regardless of their ethnicity, all people deserve respect, deserve dignity.” Sounds great, but it’s a special form of hypocrisy, for it ignores his own government’s treatment of Palestinians.

There. If you want better tasting punch, we’re going to have to do a more thorough job of straining.