11 thoughts on “Gerald Steinberg’s Hasbara War – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. You are correct in that Gerald Steinberg is a Hasbara warrior and ready to take on any front which works against Israel. However you have insulted his academic and personal integrity in a way that cannot be left unchallenged. I have known Gerald a dozen years and worked very closely with him during much of that time. I knew him to be honorable, forthright, saying what was on his mind and delivering on his commitments. His commitment to revealing and combatting anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism in unique and unparalleled among academics. He is widely respected in academic circles contrary to what is implied in this clearly polemic article. I have also had the privilege of working with Kenneth Marcus whose commitment to combatting anti-semitism is also highly regard. Mr. Silverstein believes he can enhance his own reputation by tearing down the reputation of already accomplished individuals. This is when Jews become their own worst enemies. So terribly sad.

    1. @ Edward Beck: Well, well. Even the sine qua non of hasbarists has his very own person hasbarist. How nice for Prof. Steinberg that you have his back & the back so many other pro-Israel hasbara hacks. Mind telling us how you “worked closely with him.” What exactly does that constitute?

      As for whether he’s “honorable” or not, I’d say that’s in the eyes of the beholder. Apparently, many journalists, human rights NGOs, and fellow academics don’t feel the same as you on the subject. Unfortunately, for you. If they didn’t feel this way then I guess Prof. Steinberg would be universally acclaimed as the Jewish equivalent of a saint.

      And if Solon Marcus’ reputation and legal acumen were as great as you claim he’d have won all the campus anti-Israelism cases he mounted. But he hasn’t won a one, now has he?

  2. Taking on the EU
    In 2009, seeking new enemies of Israel, Steinberg took on the EU. He requested documentation on its funding of Israeli NGOs.

    Of course, the Dutch Likud FM Uri Rosenthal took it personal and eliminated subsidies for NGOs like ICCO, Electronic Intifada and B’Tselem. My article in Jan. 2011 – Dutch FM Rosenthal a Likud Spokesperson. I did cover Steinberg’s odious work for NGO Monitor. After this incident, I never relented on my criticism of Dutch FM Rosenthal. He was not asked for a new term when the Labor Party joined a new coalition in The Hague. How poor his standing was with the Foreign Ministry, on the reception to laud his departure, Rosenthal was a no-show.

    B’Tselem had received a Dutch award for its work for the Palestinian people.

    Uri Rosenthal was a speaker for now defunct “knowledgedemocracy.nl”. Dutch foreign minister Uri Rosenthal, who tried to stifle The Electronic Intifada, sponsors ‘Internet freedom’ conference .

  3. well its obvious that this guy will be active for israel as lots or organization and also you richard declared war on israel with your anti-israel articles which by the way also be proven with some lies and speculation propaganda , so this hasbara guy is no different from you , but unlike you he didn’t start this propaganda war – he is only respond to your war so why you are one-sided and call him ” israel is his jihad” ,if jihad is a holy war for a great idea its you who opened war against israel so you and the bds consider israel as your jihad . i mean its ok to make up your mind but you are doing what he does from the other side of the map and there is no right or wrong on it because it depend where you are on the map . so its hipocracy by you to attack this guy just because he is from the other side of the map and use the word democracy as your shield when the base of democracy is freedom of speech

  4. RE: “NGOM also has a checkered relationship with Wikipedia. As background to this social media war, the Israeli government and NGOs like Steinberg’s told Israeli media they would launch a massive campaign to promote Israel’s interests (pro-Israel advocacy or hasbara) in the digital domain.” ~ R.S.

    MY COMMENT: I once posted a comment at TPM in response to a TPM Cafe commentary. My comment referred to the Deir Yassin massacre and included an excerpt from (and link to) the Wikipedia article titled “Deir Yassin massacre”. Within minutes, the title of the Wikipedia article had been changed from “Deir Yassin massacre” to “Deir Yassin military operation”, and numerous changes had been made to the body of the article.
    Several days later I checked Wikipedia and the title had been changed back to “Deir Yassin massacre”.

    1. P.S. I should have mentioned that the above episode involving a rapid-fire hasbara edit to a Wikipedia article occurred five or so years ago.

  5. RE:The Middle East Forum was founded by Daniel Pipes, who comes from a long family line of neocons (his father, Richard, was a prominent official in the Reagan administration). Pipes, like Steinberg, is both an Islamophobe and anti-Palestinian. ~ R.S.

    A BIT OF BACKGROUND FROM WIKIPEDIA ON THE PIPES FAMILY [Team B]:

    [EXCERPTS] Team B was a competitive analysis exercise commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1970s to analyze threats the Soviet Union posed to the security of the United States. . .
    . . . It is the third team, chaired by Harvard University professor Richard Pipes [Daniel Pipes’ father – J.L.D.], that ultimately received considerable publicity and is most commonly referred to as Team B. . .[4]
    . . . The Team B reports became the intellectual foundation for the idea of “the window of vulnerability” and of the massive arms buildup that began toward the end of the Carter administration and accelerated under President Ronald Reagan.[4]
    Some scholars and policy-makers, such as Anne Cahn of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, later criticized the Team B project’s findings.[5][6] . . .
    . . . According to Fred Kaplan, “In retrospect, the Team B report (which has since been declassified) turns out to have been wrong on nearly every point.[27]. . .
    . . . Team B came to the conclusion in their report [28] that the Soviets had or could develop an entirely new anti-submarine detection system that used a system that did not depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable by contemporary Western technology, even though no evidence existed for it or its deployment, other than money spent on research, and when the Western experts believed that such a system would be impossible.
    When the CIA argued that the economic chaos in the Soviet Union was hindering their ability to produce an air defense system, Team B countered by arguing that the Soviet Union was trying to deceive the American public and claimed that the Russian air defense system worked perfectly. Some members were even considering promoting a first strike policy against the U.S.S.R.[8][11][29]
    Team B also concluded that the Soviet Union did not adhere to the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, but rather believed it could win a nuclear war outright. [Richard] Pipes — in his ‘Commentary’ article — argued that CIA suffered from “mirror-imaging” (i.e., from assuming that the other side had to-and did-think and evaluate exactly the same way) . . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

    P.S. Thanks for the excellent article on Gerald Steinberg and his NGO Monitor, Mr. Silverstein! ! !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link