“Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” To be fair, it’s past time to rephrase the oft-used Ethics Alarm catch phase as, “Nah, the mainstream media doesn’t just take marching orders from the Democratic National Committee to cover for Biden’s indefensible leadership!”
Too long, I know. OK, it needs some work.
Suddenly, all through the news media over the weekend, the tale of how President Ronald Reagan intervened with a threat to withhold arms that had already been approved for delivery to Israel to force the nation to change its military strategy was being thrown in the faces of Biden critics and Israel supporters. Huh. Where did that come from?
Surprise! It came from the New York Times, the flagship of the corrupt, partisan media, just in time to fuel the “advocacy journalists'” efforts over the weekend to help block Israel’s right to defend its existence and its citizens from terrorism.
Interviewing GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, and by “interviewing” I mean debating as she took the side of Democrats, the Biden Administration, the anti-Semitic students roiling campuses and Hamas, NBC News anchor Kristen Welker said, “As you know, former President Ronald Reagan, on multiple occasions, withheld weapons to impact Israel’s military actions,” Welker said. “Did President Reagan show that using U.S. military aid, as leverage, can actually be an effective way to rein in and impact Israel’s policy?”
What a perfect factoid to weaponize for an appeal to authority and Rationalization #32. The Unethical Role Model: “He/She would have done the same thing”! The timely Times revelation: in August of 1982, Israel was shelling Palestinian terrorist strongholds in Lebanon, then a failing state in the throes of a civil war, with Palestinian forces controlling territory on its southern border. President Reagan saw films of a Lebanese child horribly wounded in the attack, and called up then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to threaten a withdrawal of U.S. aid if the shelling didn’t stop. Begin gave in. The Times also informed its readers that President Eisenhower threatened economic sanctions and to cut off aid to force Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula after it invaded Egypt in 1956. So, the Times concluded, “If it was reasonable for the Republican presidential icon to limit arms to impose his will on Israel…it should be acceptable for the current Democratic president to do the same.” Well, the Times wrote “they argued,” meaning defenders of all-things Democrat, but we know, or should, that by “they” in such situations, the mainstream media means “we.”
Thereby pre-programmed, Welker sprung the “But Reagan did it!” argument on Graham after he said, “Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war they can’t afford to lose, and work with them to minimize causalities.” The Reagan “gotcha!” is a facile and dishonest comparison designed for ignorant members of the public and wielded by either ignorant or deliberately deceptive journalists like Welker. First, the two situations are not sufficiently analogous. Lebanon was in turmoil, and the nation was not being governed by elected terrorists; its citizens were literally caught in the crossfire. Israel was not at war with Lebanon. It is at war with Gaza, because the Gazan government attacked Israel on October 7. Second, 1982 is not 2024. As even the Times points out, it was Democrats then that advocated complete support of Israel’s right to defend itself, and Republicans who were tepid in their support—and Democrats condemned them for it. Moreover, acceptance of the fact that Israel must employ extraordinary means to to survive has solidified over the decades, as Iran continues to threaten eventual nuclear annihilation, Hamas has continued to lob missiles into Israel in defiance of ceasefires and international law, and hope of a peaceful “two-state solution” has been repeatedly dashed.
Finally, and one would think obviously, the fact that “Reagan did it” doesn’t mean Reagan was right. That Israel is still being threatened by Palestinian terrorists over 40 years later suggests that we might not be where we are today if the U.S. had allowed Begin to do what he believed was best for his own nation and its citizens in 1982. Even as the Times describes it, Reagan made an emotional decision based on seeing the image an injured child. “Think of the children!” Shame on him. That is the level of analysis being used by the pro-Hamas protesters. Competent Presidents and national leaders do not act because their heartstrings get tugged on. (I suspect Nancy…)
If Senator Graham had been quicker on his metaphorical feet, he would have asked Welker to describe the circumstances that led Israel to shell Lebanon, since she was citing it as a fair analogy. She didn’t know. (It wasn’t explained in the Times piece.) She was just mouthing a retort scripted for her to defend NBC’s favorite party and its President from criticism while confusing her audience.
mmm
Ethics Alarms 
Well, since we now know the result. The only country to offer the Palestinians sanctuary after they tried to overthrow the Jordanian government was Lebanon, a Christian country. As a result, the Palestinian/Syrian forces started a civil war that saw the annihilation, forced conversion, or expulsion of the Christian population of Lebanon. That civil war bled over to Israel. If Israel had continued to attack the Palestinian positions, perhaps that would not have been the result (doubtful, but you never know).
I find it interesting that the Saudi foreign minister was asked if he or other Arab countries would take Palestinian refugees. He said no, that was the responsibility of others. That is the answer of all Muslim nations. Egypt may offer some refugee areas after intense pressure, but the Palestinians civilians are RIGHT THERE. The Egyptians claim the security risk would be too great to allow Palestinian women and children into their country. Remember the ‘Syrian refugee crisis’ of a few years ago? How many refugees did the oil-rich Arab countries take in? So, next time you hear about Arab or Muslim hospitality or generosity or charity, you know what they mean.
Remember the disastrous tsunami that struck Indonesia, a heavily Muslim country, in December 2002? I recall a lot of organizations pressing me to contribute to charitable relief, but the oil-rich Muslim countries of the Persian Gulf didn’t do a thing, despite almsgiving being one of the Five Pillars of Islam. The Muslim nations are good at playing the victim and spewing hate, but when it comes to lending a helping hand, apart from financing terrorism, they fall very short.
During that tsunami response, upon seeing the U.S. send a fleet of ships, I wondered when people were going to look to Osama bin Laden to send an aircraft carrier to help out.
OK, I exaggerated – the Saudis did send $30M, as opposed to the US who sent $950M and Kuwait, which gave $100M. Bin Laden had just released his DIY version of Fahrenheit 9/11 which helped sink John Kerry, he wasn’t sending anything. There was some hope at the time that if we gave lots of help maybe some Indonesians would choose “Brand USA” over “Brand Jihad.” It was a false hope, although their opinion of the US went up it wasn’t anything like a majority.
“Finally, and one would think obviously, the fact that ‘Reagan did it’ doesn’t mean Reagan was right.“
When I hear a prominent GOP pol say this, I’ll start paying attention.
I suspect they might be waiting for a prominent Democrat to admit that Reagan deserves substantial credit for bringing down the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc communism. Even non-prominent Democrats. When Grace and I went to Russia to adopt our son, I was interested in the analysis of the Russians regarding the issue. Without exception, they either blamed Reagan (and Gorbachev) or credited him. There didn’t seem to be any question in their minds.
Reagan was wrong about lots of things, just like FDR, but he got one really big thing right (yes, moral luck to some extent) and he deserves high ranking among Presidents for that, all by itself.
As far as prominent Democrats are concerned, Reagan was completely senile and should never have been elected, let alone reelected. He’s also the only president who was senile, because Biden’s sharp as a tack…
Mmhmm, sharp as a bowling ball is more like it.
I am kind of surprised the reporter actually credited Reagan with something she agreed with. Maybe it’s because Reagan’s policy fits nicely with the current narrative and most have probably forgotten that the Left hated Reagan.
jvb
Clearly, that script was provided to that nitwit by someone in the White House. What journalist would go to the trouble of researching something like that.
Funny: Quixotic New York Times defender “A Friend” broke his own record for most attempted EA comments after self-banning with this:
“Today’s in-the-tank-for-Biden-and-the-Democrats lead headline in the New York Times: “High Interest Rates Are Hitting Poorer Americans the Hardest.” Come on, Jack.” Heh. I was going to cite that headline already for its absurd sense of “news.” “Water is wet” would be an equivalent observation.
No, I do not give the Times credit for flagging the obvious.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.