Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Bret Stephens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bret Stephens. Show all posts

Monday, May 29, 2017

New York Times Has Gone Anti-Israel

New York Times Unleashes Onslaught of Five Op-Eds Hostile to Israel

avatarby Ira Stoll

The New York Times. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
When the New York Times opinion page hired Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss, two outspoken
 Zionist veterans of the Wall Street Journal, a friend of mine warned me that the hires could
 be a mixed blessing from a pro-Israel perspective.
Now all the anti-Israel editors already at the Times will feel like they can let loose with
 impunity, because the hiring of Stephens and Weiss provides a ready response to 
accusations of “bias.” So said my friend.
Or, as I put it back on April 13, writing about Stephens: “Anyone who thinks the Times
 hiring of him was motivated primarily by a desire to respond to the paper’s pro-Israel 
critics might want to think again.”
MAY 29, 2017 10:41 AM
0

Jewish Voice for Peace’s Hidden Agenda

A Jewish Voice for Peace demonstration. Photo: Twitter.When starting a political movement, choosing the right name is perhaps the most...
My friend’s warning turned out to be prophetic.
In the weeks since the news of the Stephens and Weiss hires broke, the Times has — as if compensating — unleashed a barrage of
 op-eds savagely hostile to Israel and Jewish interests. Among 
them:
  • An op-ed by a Palestinian terrorist, Marwan Barghouti,
  •  complaining about conditions in Israeli prisons and likening 
  • Israel to South Africa under apartheid. Even the New York Times
  •  own public editor, Liz Spayd, publicly faulted the Times for initially identifying the author as “a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian” rather than as a convicted terrorist and murderer.
  • An op-ed piece by a Palestinian lawyer, Raja Shehadeh, complaining about the Israeli checkpoints he must pass through between Ramallah and Ben-Gurion International Airport. “We cannot afford to abandon the struggle and must do what we can to end this occupation,” declared the Times article. It was adapted from Kingdom of Olives and Ash: Writers Confront the Occupation, a book that already has also been the basis of both a New York Times magazine article and a long essay in the New York Times Book Review. (The book review essay itself was the subject of a Times correction after it falsely accused Israel’s consul general in New York, Dani Dayan, of publicly calling for Palestinians to be deported to Jordan.)
  • An op-ed by the president of the National Iranian American Council, Trita Parsi, claiming, falsely, that the Iranian nuclear deal has “restrained” Iranian policy on Israel. “Iran’s actions and rhetoric on the Jewish state have shifted remarkably ever since nuclear negotiations began,” the article claimed, inaccurately.
  • An op-ed by the foreign minister of Iran, Mohammad Javad Zarif, claiming, falsely, that Iran “has been aiding the victims of extremism in Iraq and Syria,” and offering advice to America on how “to avoid the spread of terrorism and militant extremism.” It is breathtaking, coming from the representative of a country that is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Mr. Zarif has had at least seven New York Times op-ed pieces since 2003, four of them since April 2015, prompting at least some wry speculation that the Times editors will make him their next op-ed page columnist hire after Stephens.
  • An op-ed by another Palestinian lawyer, Diana Buttu, calling for the disbandment of the Palestinian Authority on the grounds that it “served as a subcontractor for the occupying Israeli military…. to keep Palestinians silent and quash dissent while Israel steals land, demolishes Palestinian homes, and builds and expands settlements.” The op-ed instead calls for a Palestinian leadership that includes Hamas, which she conveniently refers to as a political party rather than a terrorist group. The op-ed calls for Palestinians to “press for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, like those that helped to end apartheid in South Africa.”
Any single one of these op-eds, taken alone, would be totally outrageous and indefensible. The onslaught of all five of them, in six weeks, constitutes an outbreak of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hostility at the Times on a level with the Jewish cemetery desecrations and bomb threat calls against Jewish institutions that the Times blamed on President Donald Trump and treated as front-page news a few months back.
Writing in Vox, David Roberts denounced Stephens as a “cosmopolitan, well-educated, reflexively pro-Israel war hawk.” The Times Cairo bureau chief, Declan Walsh, publicly denounced Stephens on Twitter as “not cool,” falsely accusing him of “ascribing a pathological condition to an entire race of people.”
It’s one thing to see the Stephens hire triggering antisemitic or anti-Israel tropes in other publications. It’s another to see them erupting in the columns of the Times itself. That’s not to blame Stephens, or Weiss, for the reaction. It’s not their fault. Their presence at the Times probably almost certainly nets out positively for the pro-Israel side. But the backlash can’t be ignored. It must be taken into account. Precisely as my friend predicted, it sure has been brutal.
More of Ira Stoll’s media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here. 

Monday, May 1, 2017

Journalist Questions Global Warming, Gets Slammed By Lefties

NYT Columnist Stephens Says There Are Still Questions About Global Warming Predictions. The Left Loses Its Mind. Here's Why They're Full Of It.

63422514328
On Saturday, brand new New York Times conservative columnist Bret Stephens
 penned a moderate column about climate change. In that column, he says that
 global warming due to man-made activity is a certainty:
Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest

(0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming

of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the

human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.
Stephens cautions against false certainty – failing to report uncertainty in data.
 “We live in a world in which data convey authority,” Stephens says. “But authority
has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris.” Stephens’
 language about certainty is actually designed to help climate change enthusiasts –
 if they keep making claims that keep being proved wrong, without any doubts
 baked into the cake, people will simply discount what they’re saying.
This moderate take has led a mass revolt by leftists who insist they will now
cancel The New York Times. They call Stephens’ column denialism, even
 though Stephens acknowledges global warming has taken place. They say
that it’s just wrong on a factual level. Susan Matthews of Slate called the
 piece “classic climate change denialism,” explaining that reasonable people
could not be “skeptical about the dangers of climate change.” Erik Wemple
of The Washington Post actually wrote an email to the paper complaining
about the op-ed and asking for answers on Stephens’ piece – something he
 hasn’t done on any other New York Times op-ed he’s ever reported.


Here was Stephens’ eminently correct response:


Nonetheless, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight complained:

There's nothing conservative (or liberal) about the Stephens column. The issue is about evidence vs. bullshit. He doesn't know his subject. https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman/status/858427028797886466 


I wrote a book chapter on uncertainty in climate models. That Stephens/NYT column is sophistry passing itself off as reasoned skepticism. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/858049328216240128 

I’ve read Silver’s book, The Signal and The Noise. It’s an excellent primer on
 data analysis. He has an entire chapter on climate change. In that chapter, he
 states, “In climate science, this healthy skepticism is generally directed as the
 reliability of computer models used to forecast the climate’s course” – in other
words, precisely the sort of data Stephens seems to be questioning in this piece.
 Silver continues, “A survey of climate scientists conducted in 2008 found that
 almost all (94 percent) were agreed that climate change is occurring now, and
 84 percent were persuaded that it was the result of human activity. But there
was much less agreement about the accuracy of climate computer models.” In
 fact, here is Silver’s conclusion: “When we advance more confident claims and
 they fail to come to fruition, this constitutes much more powerful evidence
 against our hypothesis….[Science] is a work in progress, always subject to
 further refinement and testing. This is what scientific skepticism is all about.”
Which is exactly Stephens’ point.
But because Stephens is a conservative, when he says that he wants climate
 change advocates to be more exact in their phraseology without overstating
 levels of certainty, that’s a cause for outrage. You can only express scientific
 skepticism if you express no scientific skepticism, apparently.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Are Republicans This Stupid? Don't They Want The Presidency Back?


George Will: Beating Hillary Less Important Than Stopping Trump


As the end of the year approaches, Donald Trump is solidly ensconced at the top of the Republican polls nationally. The man just behind him? Senator 
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
97%
, an establishment bugaboo. The establishment’s favorite candidate, Senator 
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
79%
, is currently running far behind in national polling, a distant third in Iowa, and in a deadlock with Cruz and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for second in New Hampshire.

Panic time.
So, here’s the establishment roundup for Christmas week.
If You Support Donald Trump, You Want to Lose. Earlier this week, Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal unleashed a petulant column accusing all Trump and Cruz backers of begging for defeat. “Let us now pledge to elect Hillary Clinton as the 45th president of the United States,” he snarked. “Let’s do this because it’s what we want. Maybe secretly, maybe unconsciously, but desperately. We want four—and probably eight—more years of cable-news neuralgia. We want to drive ourselves to work as Mark Levin or Laura Ingraham scratch our ideological itches until they bleed a little. We want the refiner’s fire that is our righteous indignation at a country we claim no longer to recognize—ruled by impostors and overrun by foreigners.” Stephens specifically singled out Cruz for criticism, calling him a flip-flopper “happy to be on any side of an issue so long as he can paint himself as a ‘real Republican.’”
If We Have to Lose to Beat Trump, So Be It. When establishment columnists weren’t painting large swaths of the Republican base as politically suicidal, they were calling for suicide. George Will, iconic columnist, wrote today, “Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this, the GOP’s third epochal intraparty struggle in 104 years.” Never mind that Mitt Romney strayed from conservatism so far that he invented Obamacare; never mind that 
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
36%
 crafted campaign finance reform and amnesty. No, it’s Trump who singularly represents the death of the conservative ideal.
Of course, Will might just be miffed that Trump recently said “I think I have a much higher IQ… You have these guys like George Will. He sits with the little spectacles. If he didn’t have the spectacles, you wouldn’t think he’s smart because he’s wrong so much.”
Hey, Anybody Wanna Start a Third Party? Months ago, establishment Republicans complained that Donald Trump would not vow to forgo a third party run. Now, they’re thinking of a third party themselves. Weekly Standard editor-in-chief Bill Kristol tweeted:
And as I explained earlier this week:
Politico’s Jeff Greenfield says, “If the operatives I talked with are right, Trump running as a Republican could well face a third-party run – from the Republicans themselves”….Jeb Bush’s aides “began looking into the possibility of making a clear break with Trump – potentially with the candidate stating that, if Trump were the nominee, Bush would not support him.” Last week, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said that former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour “and a lot of the Republican leaders would much rather Hillary Clinton be President of the United States than have Donald Trump represent them as a Republican.” And in November, The Hill reported that “GOP establishment donors have confided to The Hill that for the first time in recent memory, they find themselves contemplating not supporting a Republican nominee for president.”
Gawd, Almighty. Jonah Goldberg of National Review sounded the alarm in September when he wrote, “Well, if this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out.” That’s been a consistent refrain from some of the columnists over at National Review – many of whom I like, respect, and read regularly. But here’s the problem, again: this is the party of Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush and John McCain and Mitt Romney. Ideological purity, unfortunately, went out the window long ago. And many of those who have suddenly discovered ideological purity didn’t have it when they were touting John Kasich. Today, Goldberg writes hilariously that he has endorsed the Sweet Meteor O’Death:
Only one candidate can unite us all in a way George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama could not. You’ve probably already guessed who I have in mind. But just in case you haven’t, it’s the Sweet Meteor O’Death, or, as he’s known on Twitter, @Smod2016.
There’s only one problem for Goldberg: Donald Trump may in fact be the Sweet Meteor O’Death.
So, here we are. Trump isn’t going anywhere, and he isn’t going anywhere because the same people who decry his rise are the ones who told grassroots Republicans to ignore conservatism in favor of “who could win.” Merry Christmas, establishment Republicans: you can thank yourselves for that giant lump of coal in your stocking.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.