An anonymous reader send me the full transcript of the analysis of Peter Kent’s anti-Israel “documentary” by Daniel Kamin and George Gruen for the American Jewish Committee’s Institute of Human Relations.  It makes clear that Peter Kent’s NBC program promoted some despicable anti-Israel propaganda – and that he is a hypocrite, or worse, to now claim to be a pro-Israel advocate in this election campaign.

A sampling of what Kamin and Gruen said:

• “[Kent’s documentary] on Israel’s occupation of the West Bank neglected the context of the occupation, failing to give any historical perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.”
• “[Kent’s approach was] misleading and unbalanced.”
• “NBC was quite clear on what it saw the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be all about. Showing pictures of the subdued Palestinians who were rounded up after a Jew was stabbed in Hebron’s Casbah (marketplace), NBC’s Peter Kent asserted: ‘This is what Palestinians fear every day: Being in the wrong place at the wrong time. . . . This is what the occupation is all about’…As John Cony of the New York Times wrote in his July I review of the program, NBC should have included a map and a brief history lesson to tell its viewers what the occupation is all about.”
• NBC’s Peter Kent reported (p. 4) that “every day Arabs are arrested for resisting the occupation. ‘Security offenses’ like promoting the outlawed PLO, or flying the PLO flag, or displaying a picture of Yassir Arafat, mean jail.” Other security offenses, such as planting bombs and stabbing civilians were notoriously absent from Mr. Kent’s litany of Palestinian security offenses. Indeed, a Jewish civilian shopper was stabbed by a Palestinian on the very day Peter Kent visited Hebron, but Mr. Kent’s report focused solely on the Israeli reaction to this act of terror.”
• “There were repeated references to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the spokesman for the Palestinians…NBC neglected to state that the United States also considers the PLO to be a terrorist organization.”
• “Why did this NBC special not include these significant developments which occurred in the weeks before the program was aired? Had these events been noted, they would have challenged the simplistic view that the Israeli occupation is the  problem and a monolithic, peace-loving PLO is the solution.”
• “[In Kent’s documentary] the Palestinians were portrayed as genuinely favoring a two-state solution, when, in fact, a poll taken last year revealed that 78 percent of West Bank Palestinians rejected a state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the ultimate solution to the conflict. These Palestinians saw the establishment of an independent state in the occupied territories as only an interim step toward full control over all of what is now Israel.”
• “Unbalanced coverage of the conflict…. It is reprehensible that NBC hung this [terrorist] label only on Israeli Jews (p. 22), while refraining from categorizing either the bus bombing or the stabbing as acts of terrorism. There were no visual images to show the wounds of the victims or the suffering of the families of the six Israelis killed in the bus incident. This sympathy was disproportionately with the Palestinians.”
• “[In Kent’s broadcast] the clear implication was that Israel is responsible for the failure of the peace process. The program neglected to mention the Arab and Palestinian intransigence which has blocked peace negotiations.”
• “When [NBC] mentioned apartheid in connection with Israel, [they] exploded an emotional powder keg. The inflammatory linking of Israel and South Africa served only to confuse and prejudice the salient issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is difficult to promote dialogue between the parties concerned when one prejudges one of the sides so completely. A more objective, impartial inquiry by NBC would have helped promote public understanding and not simply strengthened misconceptions and fanned passions. We hope that future NBC programs will clarify the issues and also examine viable options for a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Comments (11)

• Anyone see this NDP surge in Quebec coming? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? I sure didn’t!  In fact, here’s a contest: can one of you point to a single member of the commentariat who saw this historic change coming?  Name one. They have to have made this prediction more than in the past week, and they have to have said the NDP was going to eclipse the Bloc.
• Your Daily Nanos Crack™: After falling in every part of the country, just two or so weeks ago, the NDP is on the move – and the other parties are super unhappy about it.  My Liberals are down, the Tories remain flat, and the Bloc is way down. Could the NDP become the Official Opposition?  I doubt it.  But if these results carry to May 2, Liberals (in places like the GTA) and Conservatives (in places like the Lower Mainland) are going to lose seats to Jack Layton.  And that’s incredible, baby.
• Why’d it happen? Well, I’ve been a broken record on this subject, but let me say it again: under Ignatieff, the Liberal Party has moved too far to the right – outflanking Harper on Afghanistan, calling the Oilsands an instrument of “national unity,” musing about charging user fees for Medicare. And, most notably, refusing to even consider getting together with Jack Layton – which further suggested Iggy was right-wing. All of those things, and more, has persuaded Quebecois – and progressives elsewhere in the country, too – that the Liberal Party of Canada has become a paler shade of blue.  And they don’t like it.  I know I sure don’t, and I’m writing about it for a coming story in The Walrus.
• Coalition redux: I did plenty of radio and TV on the won’t-die coalition subject yesterday. Here’s sort of what happened in every case. Q: Did Michael Ignatieff make a mistake by talking about cooperation with the other parties post-election?  A: Yes, because the Cons have been able to persuade Iggy and Layton that cooperation equals coalition.  It isn’t.  Q: Why is coalition so unpopular?  A:  It isn’t!  In places like Quebec, it’s hugely popular! Q: It is? A: Yes!  And even Stephen Harper could do it on the Right – bringing together Reformers, Alliancers and Conservatives – why can’t we do it on the Left? I mean, that’s the only reason why Harper won, right?  A: Er, right.
• More Con sleaze and scandal: Forget about Your Daily Nanos Crack™- it’s Your Daily Conservative Scandal Thing™, courtesy of Bruce Carson.  “[Harper] must explain fully to voters before election day what his relationship with Carson was and how the man got hired. Harper is a notorious control freak, yet he’s trying to pass the buck. He’s trying to blame everyone else. He said Tuesday and Wednesday the security clearance “system” had failed.  Nonsense. Harper has known Carson well for many years, employing him both in government and in opposition. Carson wasn’t some stranger answering a want ad for a job watering the plants.”
• Cons wary of Sun News? I was in there for most of yesterday, and you’d never know it. I think the new network is experiencing some first-week growing pains, and will eventually settle down.  I remember Newsworld looking like a fourteenth-century woodcut when it aired, many years ago – and how CTV was once seen as an extension of the Conservative Party’s comms team, too.  Sun News will find its way, as all the others did.  And, yes, they asked me to wear a pair of pumps and sleeveless number, yesterday, and I said no.
• Pic of the day: Look, it’s Tony Clement, illegally siphoning off millions for his riding! Caption contest!

Comments (64)

My first Sun News thing that I’ve seen, and it was a doozy.

I admonish Brian for making stuff up about the Liberal platform. He looks suitably chastened.

Comments (27)

I’m an ardent supporter of Israel, as you all know. I thought Peter Kent was, too.

I was wrong. His 1987 NBC “documentary” – and the linked analysis – seriously call that into question.

Kent’s treatment of Israel was “unbalanced” and “distorted,” the study concluded. And that’s not all.

Peter Kent – and his Conservative Party – have some explaining to do. If they can’t, or won’t, every pro-Israel voter in Thornhill needs to support my friend Karen Mock.

As the former head of B’nai B’rith, Karen would have never authored anti-Israel crap like this.

UPDATE: I’ll post a free link as soon as I get it.  But I’m not alone on this.  Here’s what scholars have said about what Kent did:

• Elihayu Tal: “[Kent and NBC’s] anti-Israel bias so was so blatant, Arab countries rushed to use it as propaganda film.“
• Stephen Karetzky: “[It was] more Israel-bashing at NBC.”
• University of Pittsburgh: “[Kent’s attack on Israel] seriously misrepresented [the facts]….”

 

Comments (29)

• Gouge Away: That’s what I was humming, last night, at the Pixies concert at Massey Hall.  They played all of ‘Doolittle,’ start to finish.  People danced in their seats.  It was weird.  Anyway, it meant I missed the now-legendary Michael Ignatieff-Peter Mansbridge thing.  Sorry.  Rock’n’roll comes first.  That said…this election is weird.
• Nanos thinks so: Shockingly, stunningly, your daily poll crack has the parties….where they pretty much were when this thing started.  Conservatives without a majority, Liberals without a minority, and the NDP where it’s been for the past half-decade or so. My advice: start a fun new drinking game! On the morning of May 3, do a shooter every time you hear someone say “Why the Hell did we have an election, anyway?” You’ll be comatose, and possibly dead of alcohol poisoning, by noon.
• Scandalizers think so: The Carson scandal has it all: ex-cons in the corridors of power!  Fraud!  Patronage!  Dirty deals! Hookers hanging out with cabinet ministers! And…is it having any measureable impact on the election campaign?  Not that I can see.  The media care, the Opposition care, the voters mainly don’t.  Weird.
• Columnists think so: Opinionizers are befuddled and bewildered by this election campaign, veering from obituaries to paeans all on the same day.  Dan Gardner, for instance, who is super-smart and usually cranky, writes this historical analysis of Iggy’s predicament.  It’s a fun read, but it’s wrong. Libs win by campaigning from the Left and governing from the Right.  That has been the Igster’s biggest error.  Going Right, and staying there.
• Analysts think so: This fellow, who seems intelligent, thinks people aren’t inspired about our leaders. Um, I don’t think so.  Conservatives think Harper has done smashingly well; Liberals feel the same way about Ignatieff; and pretty much everyone is impressed by Jack Layton (I’m one of them – running a campaign like he has, when fighting cancer?  Wow.)  The problem is that our politics have become entrenched, I think: the Cons have a lock on their 30 to 35 per cent, and everyone else fights about the remainder, for eternity.  It’s like a bad Star Trek episode.
• Even authors think so! Here, Margaret Atwood gets in on the analysis act, trying to poke through the entrails and figure it all out. My advice: stick to fiction, Maggie.  This thing is weirder than a novel.
• Weird pic: We have a winner!  And I found it all on my own!

This explains so very much.

Comments (117)

Wonder if the Reformatories are regretting objecting so much to the last one? This one is way, way worse for them.

Comments (46)

Here it is, linked…

This being the kick-off week for Sun TV, the new-look Sun paper, and the revamped Sun web site, it’s a good time to address a question I frequently get asked by family, friends and total strangers.  To wit:

“What’s a charter member of the latte-sipping, Volvo-driving, secular humanist trilateralist cabal like you doing with a bunch of right wing kooks? Don’t you feel uncomfortable being a Liberal surrounded by Conservatives?”

My stock answer, which has the benefit of actually being true:  “You get used to it.  Besides, pretty much every Leftie in the country is going to feel like I do, in a couple weeks – you know, a stranger in an even stranger land.”

They don’t get it, or they don’t agree.  They will, soon enough.

Stephen Harper’s Reformatories, you see, are heading to victory on May 2. And, barring some big upset in the next few days, it may be a big victory, too.

Now, it’s not like that the Conservative leader deserves a majority, let alone re-election. He’s run up a historically-big deficit, he’s run a lousy campaign, and he’s run his promise to clean up government straight into the ditch – with so many ethical lapses taking place, you need a program to keep track.  (My personal favourite? He fires Helena Guergis for cavorting with hookers, when she didn’t – and he then gives a big patronage job to convicted fraud artist Bruce Carson.  Who, er, brought a real hooker to a party at 24 Sussex.)

So if I’m right, and Harper’s done such a crummy job, why is he cruising to victory? Mainly, it’s because those of us on the Left have done a lousier job.

First off, the Liberals and the NDP had a shot at working together, about two years ago, but they blew it.  The forces of the Left allowed themselves to be scared away off of cooperation/coalition/merger by Harper – despite the fact that Harper himself had brought together the forces of the Right, and then won government.

Secondly, Michael Ignatieff feels more comfortable among Rosedalian Liberals. You know, the ones who – over martinis at the Toronto Tennis Club – always felt more kinship with the likes of John Turner or Paul Martin than they did with, say, Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chretien. You know, Liberal lefties who win elections.

Thirdly, Iggy and his Rosedalian senior staff thought they could ignore Jack Layton’s NDP. By becoming a paler shade of blue, they assured themselves, they’d win back government. Thus, the Liberal chief was more hawkish than Harper on Afghanistan, more enthusiastic about the Oil Sands, and more willing to look at Medicare “alternatives” than any Liberal ever should. In so doing, Iggy scared away soft NDP voters, all of whom now consider Iggy to be a paler version of Harper.

What’s the solution for the Left? Same as it was two years ago: listen to smart guys like Chretien, Ed Broadbent, Roy Romanow, and bring together progressives to form a single, formidable political force. That’s how to beat Harper.

The good news, I suppose, is that those of us on the political left will now have four long years to get our act together.

Because, believe me: on May 3, this Leftie ain’t going to be the only stranger in an even stranger right-wing land.

Comments (97)

The site went dark, there, for a while.  Media Temple, which hosts it, had a big system-wide crash.

Also, I still don’t see my Sun column online anywhere yet – it’s in the dead tree version, however, so go buy it, if you’re so inclined!

 

Comments (3)

• So, er, what happened? Lots of big changes of course/plan in the past 24 hours for a lot of folks, me included.  Here’s a summary, which may leave you as bewildered as I tend to be most days.
• Kinsella Kolumn Killed: If you are one of the two or three people who read it, you will notice that my usual Tuesday Sun column ain’t there.  Why isn’t, you ask?  Beats me, says I.  I filed it, my editor got it, and the rest is a mystery.  My suspicion is that the launch of the new Sun TV network, the launch of the new Sun web site, and the paper redesign all had something to do that.  That, or I’ve been canned, and no one’s told me yet. Here’s a snippet of it, in the unlikely event you are curious about the subject matter: “Stephen Harper’s Reformatories, you see, are heading to victory on May 2. And, barring some big upset in the next few days, it may be a big victory, too.  Now, it’s not like that the Conservative leader deserves a majority, let alone re-election. He’s run up a historically-big deficit, he’s run a lousy campaign, and he’s run his promise to clean up government straight into the ditch – with so many ethical lapses taking place, you need a program to keep track.  (My personal favourite? He fires Helena Guergis for cavorting with hookers, when she didn’t – and he then gives a big patronage job to convicted fraud artist Bruce Carson.  Who, er, brought a real hooker to a party at 24 Sussex.)  So if I’m right, and Harper’s done such a crummy job, why is he cruising to victory? Mainly, it’s because those of us on the Left have done a lousier job.”
• Sun TV rises: Speaking of the TV thing, I wasn’t on the launch show yesterday, either.  I will be on there tomorrow, I think, perhaps as an out-of-work columnist.  Some of the commentary on the new network is here and here.  I watched a bit of the launch with my staff, and I can tell you the following:  (i) I will not be wearing a short skirt, unless you want to pay me scads of money, in which case I will; (ii) I like free speech, too, but you won’t see me yelling “fire” in a crowded Sun TV studio anytime soon; (iii) I have noticed that “political correctness” is usually code for “I want to say whatever pops into my head without getting sued/fired;” and (iv) “Controversy,” is my middle name, so I should fit right in, however much I am a Bolshevik when compared to the rest of the gang.
• Libs change gears?: So says Ms. Hebert:  “The lines may be different but the basic script is eerily familiar.  For the third time in as many federal elections, the Liberals are switching horses at the mid-way point in the hope of resuscitating a flagging campaign.” Well, not quite.  Reporters may not have noticed it, but the Libs and the NDP have been talking about the subject for quite some time – it’s just that some media outlets find talking about strategy and tactics a lot more interesting than writing about, you know, issues.  And, on health care:  the Libs deftly turned a potential negative (the Harper misquote in that hard-hitting health care ad) into a positive (a fun contest to find the quote with which to replace it). Brilliant.
• Reformatories target NDP: As Jane points out in her daily take on the daily Nanos:  “Stephen Harper will lose seats in Quebec, is dropping support in British Columbia and will not form a majority government on May 2, according to a new Nanos Research poll.” That’s a lot of bad news for the Con leader – so he’s now changing course, and starting to aim at the surging NDP and Jack Layton. Will it work?  Dunno.  But expect a lot more critical scrutiny of Wacko Jacko by both the Grits and Tories in coming days.
• Poll changes: Sort of.  You Daily Nanos Crack™ suggests that the Liberal-Conservative gap remains what it has been for weeks (about 8 or 9 points), and that the NDP’s national support is still about half the Liberals’ (30 to 17, respectively).  So one thing hasn’t yet changed – vindication for those of us who were predicting this election will get us more or less what we had when Parliament dissolved: a minority Tory government.
• Pic of the day: Caption contest!

 

“Whee! Look at me! Look at me! I’m a contender!”

 

Comments (53)

An example of TransAlta’s brilliant business model.

The heartless creeps who run this greedy multinational – and, as shown on my site last week, don’t give a damn when they make small town Ontario families sick – get mocked on Twitter, here.

Follow it, one and all! This could get really interesting.

Comments (5)