Brith Sholom Media Watch Alert #739, 3/1/15

To: Brith Sholom Media Watch Subscribers
From: Jerry Verlin, Editor (jverlin1234@verizon.net)
Subj: Brith Sholom Media Watch Alert #739, 3/1/15

This Week In Part In The Inq: AP and Herzog on Herzog on Daylight: Daylight Between Them?

Compare these two statements – one by the AP this week in the Philadelphia Inquirer (Inq) on Israeli opposition leader Herzog’s position on where there’s “daylight” between folks on Iranian nuclear weapons talks, and one on where there’s such “daylight” by Herzog himself – and see if you see any daylight between them.

*** AP in Philadelphia Inquirer, Wednesday, 2/25/15, A6:

Calling Netanyahu’s speech next week to the U.S. Congress “a mistake,” he [Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog] asserted that there should be “no daylight” between Israel and the Obama administration on an emerging deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program. [emphasis added]

*** New York Times op-ed by Israeli Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog, Friday, 2/27/15:

… However deeply I disagree with Mr. Netanyahu on many issues – the peace process, settlement policy, social justice issues and his coming speech to Congress – on one thing there is no daylight between us: Israel’s security. No Israeli head of state will tolerate terrorist rockets raining down on our children. No Israeli head of state will turn a blind eye to the dangers posed by the new, chaotic and violent Middle East. No Israeli head of state will ever tolerate a nuclear Iran. [emphasis added]

Further light on where there’s daylight between folks shone elsewhere in this op-ed by Netanyahu’s election opponent:

*** In calling Netanyahu’s acceptance of an invitation to address “the Republican-controlled Congress – an invitation he accepted without consulting America’s Democratic president” a “major mistake,” Herzog criticized Bibi for breaching bipartisanship, as he sees it, not for differing with the president on an emerging deal under which Iran, later or sooner, becomes a nuclear power.

It [Bibi accepting Boehner’s invitation and making that speech] will only undermine Israel’s ability to influence the critical issue of securing a genuine guarantee that Iran will never gain access to nuclear weaponry. [emphasis added]

*** Herzog added: “I too am concerned about the possibility that American diplomats could be tempted to accept an insufficient guarantee of our safety.”

*** And: “Especially on the Iranian nuclear threat, Israelis are one.”

*** Any lingering ambiguity about where Netanyahu’s Israeli election opponent believes that daylight to lie is dispelled by Herzog’s op-ed’s references to where others directly impacted by Iran’s nuclear ambitions stand:

Indeed, my countrymen are joined by many Arabs who are likewise concerned about the centrifuges spinning at Natanz and Fordow…. When reasonable Israelis, Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and others sound the same alarm bells about Iran, everyone should pause and beware of accepting an irreversible deal we might live to regret. [emphasis added]

Bottom line, from a media watching standpoint: Westerners who read the AP in the Inq et ilk this week, but not Netanyahu’s election opponent’s op-ed in the New York Times, got a misleading view on where Netanyahu’s election opponent sees daylight. These readers likely attributed Herzog’s criticism of Bibi speaking to Congress to a Herzog belief that “there should be ‘no daylight’ between Israel and the Obama administration on an emerging deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program.” But in reality, Herzog, Netanyahu, other Israelis, along with Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and others in the Mideast are all sounding the same alarm bells that the Obama administration’s emerging nuclear deal with Iran will have the opposite effect from Iran¸as Herzog’s op-ed put it, “never” gaining access to nuclear weapons.

An Unrequited Invitation to Respond

Last week’s BSMW #738 addressed Inq house foreign affairs columnist Trudy Rubin’s column last week charging Netanyahu with being against “any” nuclear deal with Iran, and quoting with implied approval an Israeli commentator’s accusation of Bibi being “obsessed” with “his campaign against Iran.” Last Sunday I sent this email to Ms. Rubin:

 Dear Ms Rubin,

Our weekly emailed media watch today (attached as a Word doc) discussed your column on Bibi opposing “any” international nuclear deal with Iran.  We took the position that he’s opposed to a bad deal, as are American leaders cited in the recent Washington Post editorial, Sunni Arab states and even Bibi’s Israeli opponents, and that you should have made clear that Bibi and Israelis are far from alone in their concerns.  We also said the obsession is that of Iran for Israel’s destruction.  If you would care to respond, we’ll run it next week.

We invite you to subscribe to our watch, which would offer you a view of some Israel supporters’ take on Western media portrayal of Israel.

Jerry Verlin
jverlin1234@verizon.net

Regards,
Jerry