Pope uses the T-word and not just to describe Hamas - outrageous! Israel is furious.
He does at least have a certain authority of office, if nothing else, on matters relating to the promised land.
Meanwhile Piers Morgan and Finkelstein.
HT TLN where I saw it.
They were strangely quiet there on Finkelstein’s performance. Admittedly the interview was arranged as an ambush, with neocon hitman Douglas Murray invited to throw 3 minutes of uninterrupted hate and untruths in the direction of Finkelstein’s departed back. It really was bile.
If you watch the Morgan-Finkelstein interview on Youtube, Finkelstein’s humanity is emotionally acclaimed in the btls.
Maybe TLN expected Finkelstein to be more combative. If so I agree - personally I thought this was a car crash for Finkelstein. Morgan sets the agenda - which is, Finkelstein himself. A penalty shootout between one sides’ forwards and the other sides’ goalkeeper. The goalkeeper doesn’t usually score many goals .
Morgan set out the tone with a timeline of Finkelstein’s statements after October 7th. Finkelstein replied honestly, to his credit. But he accepted Morgan’s description of the events of Oct 7th without demur. No mention that it was the Israeli narrative that was reigning supreme in the west, and there were many Israeli people deliberately killed by Israel. Finkelstein allowed the discussion to be about Hamas ‘atrocities’ without so much as a proven example, or him pointing out most of the alleged atrocities were not backed up. This put him in a position of extreme weakness, having to defend his own statements on the basis that any atrocities by Hamas amounted to terrorism, without even any balancing counters regarding the other sides’ actions…
At the end of it I’m not sure if Finkelstein even knew where he was. He thanks Morgan for letting him speak and not interrupting him, even thought he did many times.
I thought he looked traumatised from the beginning.
I think the subject of his own morality is such a sensitive one - sorely tested on the day as the propaganda rolled out - for him, he forgot there were bigger issues at stake here, causing him almost to do a Javert.
I only watched the first few minutes, Piers Morgan is odious (although relatively civil this time around, so far as I could see). Morgan set the frame and dictated a narrative that NF was invited to deny or cave to. It looked to me as if he opted for the latter.
As for the Newsweek article, words fail me. Perhaps they’d like to treat us to a revisionist account of the life/career of Toussaint L’Ouverture and the many atrocities he committed /sarc
I believe they’ve been flying drones as well, albeit merely carrying out surveillance rather using them to pitch grenades etc. Seemingly the agreement on banning aircraft must not cover this.
Do we know when the interview took place? By now informed people must be aware of the possibility that Hamas didn’t kill any unarmed civilians - facts & evidence without bias are required to make accusations in courts, all the rest is speculation and often just lies. NF needs to review the possibilities before he speaks again, imo.
Yeah he caved in to the narrative. Even Morgan’s brutally obvious footwork was too much for Finkelstein’s honesty. Corbyn was the same. Galloway would have had the the stage-setting Morgan for lunch. Though of course Murray would have still come on as soon as the coast was clear, to reverse reality.
I had the same thought, was it 2 weeks old or something, but no - it seems to be in the last day or two.
It’s pretty surprising that Finkelstein seems out of touch as to how what was alleged to have happened has come unstuck; you’d have thought he’d be all over the real news.
Piers-Morgan really is a piece of work. Finkelstein’s mistake was not correcting Morgan’s opening statement, by saying he (Finkelstein) " … you’ve obviously been very vocal since it all kicked off".
If he had started with “Actually I’ve been very vocal all my life based on 75 years of injustice etc”, he would have had a chance.
As you said, Galloway would have had Morgan for lunch!
Yes, many of Piers Morgan’s Palestinian suppoter guests - there have been quite a few of them, though still greatly outnumbered by guests batting for Israel - didn’t let Morgan past that starting point. Morgan’s handlers must have been a bit nervous, that Morgan and his crude Route One might be swept away, bringing on supersub Douglas Murray to throw black paint over the scene. Murray’s 3 minutes of scripted assassination didn’t relate much to what Finkelstein had said, as rather than bury Morgan in plain truths Finkelstein had allowed himself to be made the news story, which at least demonstrated his honesty to the world. Murray’s personal attack misfired, as I think some commenters seemed to pick up.
With the passage of a bit of time, Finkelstein has learned from this and has little trouble rebutting both Morgan and Dershowitz at once.
Dershowitz must have been looking forward to a repeat performance; trampling over his old enemy Finkelstein would have given him no end of satisfaction.
Instead Finkelstein brushed aside the attempt to personalize it and Dershowitz just looked like a sad old bigot.
Morgan wasn’t so objectionable here. He’s not ten out of ten in favour of Israel, he has occupied the slot of about 7.5 out of ten that he fondly imagines is five/ten. And basking in the fact that even his 7.5/10 makes him seem sympathetic to the Palestinians, by comparison to the rest of the mainstream media.
Thanks @Evvy_dense . That must be the first time that Piers Morgan has closed his mouth for more time than 10 seconds where anyone who he doesn’t agree with is talking.
Dershowitz throws out many completely false allegations, like Hamas cut of the breast of woman, Hamas took over in a bloody revolution, etc. I think he’s a worse piece of work than Morgan and I despise Morgan! However, where even Morgan’s
… there is clearly a shift of position by him, and I hope this becomes a general media shift.
“A new poll conducted by Harvard University and The Harris Poll found 51% of Americans aged 18 to 24 believe the way to end the Israeli Palestinian conflict is to end Israel and hand it over to Hamas and the Palestinians. A previous poll conducted soon after the Hamas massacre on October 7 found only 26% of those asked held those views.”
"The younger aged Americans predominately said they sided with Hamas while among those over 65, support for Israel exceeds 96% and only 4% favor Hamas.
Over 60% of young Americans – a clear majority – believe the Hamas attack was justified and a result of the hardship of Palestinians while Israel is conducting a genocide. Some 67% said Jews were “oppressors,” a position rejected by 73% of all participants in the poll, who said that was a “false ideology.” "
Looks like Israel has lost the young people of America in the aftermath.
Given the support for Israel in the older brigade, I wonder if less exposure to the media in the younger groups has anything to do with the stark differences across the ages.
I’m guessing that you are right. That age group will most likely get their news from social media and despite the censorship, they will all have seen the images and there is plenty on TikTok, and other relatively free platforms. Often it’s Jews (and others) with potted histories of Palestine and very critical of the Israeli regime. Long may it continue.
Biggest change is in Morgan. Kept having to pull the Rabbi off of Finkelstein. Change from a couple of months ago. First half he steps in on Finkelstein’s side.
By about halfway however Morgan sides with the Rabbi trying to pin Finkelstein down on a loaded question - should Hamas stay in power. Despite the interruptions Finkelstein is unmoved; keeps pointing out the question needs to be applied to Israel too, responsible for vastly more deaths.
It’s quite hard to listen to the Rabbi’s exaggerations, lies and personal attacks; comes across more like rabid. But Finkelstein sticks to his guns well, refusing to be the focus.
Content-wise this discussion could have taken about 5-10 minutes but the dynamics are intriguing, worth watching for that alone. Morgan was much better than before but seems to have his own target of scoring for both sides, hence his “it’s a simple question - should Hamas stay in power”. Finkelstein replied with “Why not let me decide whether it’s a simple question”, and then elaborated.
Morgan’s Paxmanesque behaviour is understandable as he must feel he needs to be able to point to something when put under pressure by the Lobby. Finkelstein wasn’t being rushed though and I think he would have sat there all day answering the question on his own terms.
But it’s interesting that the Jewish leaders can’t find other opponents for Finkelstein - as Finkelstein says the adhom is because his opponent can not deal with the facts.
That’s why people like Schmuley and Douglas Murray are put in to bat, the object is to bat Finkelstein - and his facts of course - away.
And still Piers Morgan can’t help but show his prejudice. He ‘doesn’t believe Israel is committing genocide’ and Israehell’s response was a response to ‘a terror attack’ yet somehow manages to forget the past 70 odd years of Israehell’s terror attacks.
As for Shmuley, how he doesn’t have multiple breaks on his nose is a miracle and perhaps he is protected by his god?
With maturity trumping petulence, this interview was almost a microcosm of Israel’s encounter with Iran. After the early skimishing where Morgan, armed with his usual supply of canned Israeli tropes seems relatvely confident, Marandi warms to his professorial detail and swarms all over him. At one point Morgan points out that Marandi is smirking; Marandi replies that “I’m smirking at you.” Soon after, following another trope from Morgan, Marandi asks “Should I smirk?”. Sarcastic savages - the ultimate western humiliation
Clearly Marandi has given thought to the language used; Morgan can’t find a trope to challenge Marani’s ‘Holocaust in Gaza’; there’s nothing on his cribsheet (maybe Joe Biden has a better one ).
Along with ‘Holocaust in Gaza’, tag: genocide, nonsense, misinformation, ethnosupremacist regime and a host of others.
By the end the seemingly unstoppable Iranian has the stage to himself to explain, that he himself survived two attacks with mustard gas, nerve agents suppied by the well-meaning West - in Iran’s war with Saddam, itself a western creation.
Morgan’s final gobsmacked silence lasts a full three minutes - so that’ll be a ten on the scale, then, as I doubt Marandi’s feat will be beaten.
A more considered reply might be this. It is really good (IMHO) to at last see a Middle East spokesman who is articulate, unruffled by interviewers blatant lies (I can’t accept that Morgan really has seen evidence of rapes, beheadings, and baby murders or he would be happy to reveal this evidence), and can make points clearly.
Perhaps Morgan’s quiet spells are an indication that he now believes the truth but has to continue the propaganda charade in order to keep his rather cushy and no doubt well paid position.
I guess we won’t be seeing too much of Marandi on British mainstream media.
.
His sermons must be torture though.
