Comments on: CSM plays PR flack for Hamas’ “moderation”

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 22 May 2006 13:03:20 +0000

6 Lil Mamzer
Yes I am aware of Helena Cobban’s Tony Judt like final solution for the Jewish problem of nationhood.

7 Gary Rosen
The CSM reminds me of those “mainstream” Protestant churches who want to divest from Israel. Say what you want about evangelicals at least they are not for de facto genocide of the Jews of Israel.

By: Gary Rosen

Gary Rosen — Sun, 21 May 2006 22:04:40 +0000

Joel,

I certainly don’t want to defend Time or Newsweek, but my feeling has been that the CSM has gone significantly beyond even the usual MSM bashing of Israel and apologies for Palestinian terrorism.

By: Li'l Mamzer

Li'l Mamzer — Sun, 21 May 2006 19:39:55 +0000

Joel, are you familiar with Helena Cobban’s columns in the CSM? She wrote one a couple of years ago laying out an argument why Israel should be subsumed into a ‘one-state solution’. This, in addition to the flat-out lies, distortions, and terror-appeasement she normally serves up.

By: Joel

Joel — Sun, 21 May 2006 18:22:48 +0000

#3 Gary Rosen
Correct. I first noticed the CSM when I was in High School (at the public library) back in 1970 and was struck buy its visceral hostility towards the Jewish State 9along with Time and Newsweek Magazines as well as Life Magazine – but that is another story). Their correspondent one John K. Cooley, was particularly bad.

By: Li'l Mamzer

Li'l Mamzer — Sun, 21 May 2006 16:59:49 +0000

The article is total bullshit, and it starts with the headline:

Moderate voices vie for clout within Hamas

The use of the word 'moderate' to describe the various flavors of Palestinian Arab-sponsored genocide against the Jewish nation is automatic disqualification from serious journalism. At least the CSM cleared that up with the very first word. If they keep that up they can publish an entire edition on a 3 x 5 index card.

By: Gary Rosen

Gary Rosen — Sun, 21 May 2006 16:15:48 +0000

I hope this is not a great surprise to anybody. The CSM has been fanatically hostile to Israel for decades.

By: Cynic

Cynic — Sun, 21 May 2006 13:34:04 +0000

… or the creation of a Palestinian state including the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem, â€œand we support that.â€

But they had all that before 1967. Why did they not support it then? But that would have been very undiplomatic to ask, no?

Of course maybe he is referring to a Palestinian state that includes the GS, WB & EJ along with SE (something else) which we shall not mention, as well!

By: Michael Lonie

Michael Lonie — Sun, 21 May 2006 01:43:53 +0000

What part of NO does the CSM not understand?

The Arabs could have had the 1949 borders (less Jerusalem) immediately after the Six-Day War when Israel proposed that in exchange for real peace. The Arab countries ALL rejected it in favor of a continued attempt at genocide.

As for that “Nile to Euphrates” nonsense it is an ancient Arab propaganda lie. Israel never had any imperial ambitions, the Israelis only wanted to be left to live in peace, something the Arabs have never allowed them. In this lie we see the Arabs’ projection onto the Israelis of their own vicious ambitions.