He was all about making accusations and was not interested in allowing her to answer.
Subscribe to Israpundit Daily
Digest
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
dove Said:
I think they were already leaking this news on this position a few weeks ago.
@ bernard ross:
Comment to you in moderation.
@ bernard ross:
Her interview may have paid off.
Obama has given up on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his term in office, but will look for ways to keep the two-state solution viable during Netanyahu’s upcoming visit to Washington.
US President Barack Obama has made a “realistic assessment” that a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians is not possible during his final months in office, US officials said Thursday.
While Obama remains committed to a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, he does not believe it could happen before he leaves office in January 2017, barring a major shift, officials said
Lets hope that Israels Prime Minister follows suit. He needs to recant. He can simply state that due to the uprising in Palestinian terror it is obvious they do not want peace and giving them 2 states would be suicide for Israel. Can not run the risk of what happened when we pulled out of Gaza ie millions spent on building terror tunnels instead of investing in the people. Blaming Israel for their so-called living conditions??
BB is an idiot. The interviewer tried to capitalize on BB’s support for a 2 state. Who’s side are you on BB? Ours or theirs? You know darn right well they only want to blow the Jewish state right off the map! Stop giving them more ammunition to do so!
@ dove:
I agree that the circumstances were very negative.
this interviewer cited a lot of 3rd parties like obama, diskin, rivlin, etc to trap her in arguing with them. She could have said she has no ideas why they made those innacurate statements and that the iterviewer should talk to them about their views rather than her. she could say that ex military men and politicians are sometimes seeking to feather their bed for future political positions and high fees on invited speaking tours, who knows why they say things, ask them. Sometimes she had good points which got lost in the poor english. I noticed that I had to go back to write down her points because they got lost in the melee, which in itself makes the venture questionable. I think that anyone, even with good english, has to question what is their goal in going on AJ, what can they accomplish in even the best of circumstances, its almost like trying to convince the nazi party when you rationalize that most of their viewers are pre disposed to the pal position, and not due to reasoning nor facts.
In any case, I am very pro Shaked, and wish her great success.
Max Said:
NO, she introduced postions, opinions and points etc but did not “make” those points. For the most part she did poorly on the support for the points she introduced. Perhaps you can show us how she “made” her points? so we can see that you do not just blow hot air?
Max Said:
as usual, you make silly and inaccurate statements.. let me repeat again those points which I introduced directly, and indirectly, in my posts, put on your spectacles and see if you can find them this time:
1- AJ is biased against Israel
2- AJ viewership is biased against Israel
3- An interview on AJ is worthless as the likelihood for changing views is almost nil
4- the interviewer was dishonest in tactics
5-Interviewers dishonest tactics indicated an intentional agenda to censor shaked.
6- Interviewers attempts to censor shaked indicated a prior plan to prevent viewers from hearing Israels side.
7-Interviewers tactics and censorship demonstrate he is not a “journalist”
8-Interviewers behavior puts into question any facts asserted by him.
9- shaked is not experienced enough in dealing with common dishonest interviewing tactics
10- shakeds poor english diminished the arguments she attempted to prove.
11- I submitted alternate paradigms to deal with the interviewers tactics
12- I indicated the Sisi approach to AJ
13- I pointed out that shaked may have been intentionally poorly advised
14- I alluded to BB’s neutering of rival right wing personalities.
perhaps you can let this forum know which of the above points which I introduced that you wish to rebut, or were you as usual just blowing more hot air, peeing on the carpet like a naughty puppy?
Max Said:
I find it curious that every few moths you turn up again here tugging at my coattails, begging for my attention, nipping at my heels like a naughty puppy seeking a game of throw and fetch.
I have repeatedly demonstrated that I have no interest in your posts and have previously stated the reason being that you are incredibly superficial and highly ignorant and unread in Israeli and ME issues. This was apparent with your first ludicrous efforts a few years ago when you laughingly asserted that the real news of the syrian “revolution” was coming from the twitterings of the cannon fodder in the field. You are just not up to the level of most other posters here, you are likely a lazy reader who wishes to prognosticate to others without doing any homework.
In spite of my efforts to avoid your childish attempts to provoke me, in order to beg for my attention to play a game of throw and fetch, I inevitably have to pop you on your puppy snout for peeing on the carpet as you just did again here, …….causing you once again to scamper away with your tail between your legs for another few months until the humiliating embarrassment you invited on yourself blows over and you inevitably return as if nothing happened before. It is not a hobby, simply a puppy training method.
dove Said:
You are correct, this was at the baginning..
I went back and looked again at it 3 times. she in fact stated a number of more points that I beleive were good points but lost in the noise and confused by her poor handling of the english language. I applaud that she brought up jewish settlement rights in judae samaria but she was poor at rebutting the interviewers opinions from judges, UN, etc, also at dealing with quotes from obama, diskin, rivlin, etc
She stated and brought up points, which is very important as no one else has done it on the public forum… too bad those who speak english in the GOI never do it.
I think many of her arguments towards the end were confused by her poor english.
Also, al jazeera is not the place as their viewership is biased and a waste of time and effort.
I laud her spirit, I laud her character, and I feel now that she appears to be the only one who defends the settlers and the Jews in the fake right wing coalition. In BB’s last 2 terms he has never said that jews have the right to settle in YS, he never defends that right even with words…. I beleive that is becuase he intends to withdraw from most of YS. She is willing to defend Jews, she is the only one in the GOI, she gets no help from the PM, the DM, the president, nor the FM. they are all frauds.
Thank you everyone for this intelligent discussion.
bernard ross Said:
Sure she did. I took a copy so I can make the same counter-points Islamic propagandists. You are blowing a lot of pointless smoke – seems to be your hobby.
ebyjeeby Said:
Conservatives are having a meeting today on what they did wrong or how they were negative.
..
I don’t know how they can be so blind or unwilling to acknowledge how the Major Media spun a narrative that made them look negative and disallowed voices of other narratives.
..
CBC was a major culprit as I was tuned to Radio One during that time. No online comment of mine on their radio website in response to various programs no matter how polite etc- ever got printed “content disabled”. No opposing voice on their talk shows ever made it past the screener.
..
One explanation could be that some section or majority of the ruling class is behind it – they own and control the media – their motivation must be economic – oil trade with Islam. Another explanation is that the basic psychological weaknesses that we are historically saddled with (much of it from social indoctrination form the ruling calls in school etc that we should not defend ourselves from aggression because it makes us easier to rule) and the refusal to acknowledge that multiculturalism doesn’t work with a hostile invading culture.
..
Canadians didn’t “decide” the media masters decided for them and gave them the illusion they “decided” – it was so extremely obvious.
..
Trudeau surrendered to Islam by stopping fighting ISIS and is importing 25,000 Syrian Jew-hatteers before Christmas (Yes every Syrian, on every side, has been indoctrinated to hate the Jews). Part of Trudeau’s voting base is Canadian Muslims including very prominently Palestinian Immigrants – they hero-worship him.. The majority of this base wanted Canada to stop fighting ISIS – though they claim to be “moderate” it seems when the bullets hit the infidels they side with Islam.
So what do you think? You think Trudeau plans to bring flowers to the Israel at the UN the next time there is a crisis or is he more likely to aid the Pals in their quest to annihilate Israel.
..
Incidentally both American and Canadian Media foster racism. When Muslims or Mexicans feel insulted became a section or part of their culture is criticized – they are being racist. They are being racists because they are prejudicially ascribing that a part is the whole – they have their identity equated to the whole of something and refuse to inspect it – that is racist. . Politicians and the media don’t want to offend these voters by pointing out their obvious racism and in fact they empower and encourage their racism by allowing them to denounce their critics who have simply made accurate rational observations, as racist.
@ ebyjeeby:
In the late 80’s and early 90’s I had the privilege of being invited to the CBC TV 11, Santa Fe, NM, syndicated round tables that, among others included a few times, the Israeli representative in Houston. I have the video tapes. He was a local politician from Israel that should have never been allowed to be at a studio. His English was far worse than pathetic and his camera savvy, NONE.
It is very demanding for anyone to perform coherently before cameras and booms. More so if the anchor is experienced, mobile and well versed on the topics.
Even if there is a very short delay pause between capture and broadcasting, the pressures are terrific. Ms. Shaked was poised all along.
Still the rampaging, well groomed islamic interviewer showed far more studio savvy than the Minister.
There should be a government function charged with providing training to government officials on how to handle interviews.
Minister Shaked was very well rounded but failed to use techniques normally used by experts at being part of televised settings.
We owe a nod of gratitude to Ms. Shaked for her ability to keep her cool and be true to the facts.
I still think she did quite well under the circumstances.
She did make the point that the reason a 2 state solution would not work is because of what happened when Israel pulled out of Gaza. She was quite firm on this. The interviewer finally gave up on this point which is a victory!
SHmuel HaLevi 2 Said:
Sisi jailed them…. and the foreigners had to whine and wail for their release with caps in hand…. oh for an Israeli leader with the guts to do the same.
Ted Belman Said:
She made no points, it was a noisy melee. it was obvious that it was set up as a noisy melee to overwhelm her with speed and noise. the same tactic that the pals use to silence speakers at events. he used a pal tactic. when dealing with dishonest enemies one should immediately change the paradigm. Rather than compete for noise should have gone silent asking “are you finished yet, because apparently you dont want me to answer any questions that you put to me as you interrupt my every sentience before I answer the question.” Never let the enemy dictate the battle.Ted Belman Said:
NO, she should not be learning on the job… get someone else to deal in english interviews unless the media is pro Israel and can be counted on to allow her to answer.
I am proud of her spirit and her character as a human being but an error in judgement was made in her attending this ambush which should have been foreseen and obviously was not. this is inexperience plus lack of english fluency.
In fact, unless she came to this on her own without advice I would have to wonder:
SHmuel HaLevi 2 Said:
why indeed? Perhaps like feiglin and bennett she is competition and a rival for leadership of the non existent right wing?
Bill Narvey Said:
I agree. But one should not expected anything else from al jazeera and Hassan. Poor judgement in the decision making to send shaked, or perhaps anyone, into to this situation.
ebyjeeby Said:
Absolutely right, so why didnt shaked, BB and the GOI see this coming? It was highly unlikely that Al Jazeera did not have an agenda to discredit Israel and shaked. it is highly unlikely that any of al Jazeeras viewers would be swayed by any Israeli interview to change their position. Obviously, more even than BBC AJ would seek to propagate an image to their muslim audiences that maintains their loyalty and viewership.
Bill Narvey Said:
I agree, it was a major disadvantage but not the entire story. It is absurd to send an non excellently fluent spokesperson to begin with.
Shaked did not culturally nor linguistically know how to deal with the fast talking, intentionally ambushing tactics. She could not think on her feet in english. No non fluent experienced english speaker would have performed well under that scenario of ambush. but she also did not appear to have the experience to handle his typical behavior. She could have gone quiet, allowed him to finish and wait and ask softly… is he finished, because he does not appear to want to allow her to get her message out as he interrupted her everytime in mid sentence….. she just tried to talk over him. She allowed him to determine the speed by responding as he wanted. its better to shut up and allow silence to enter that scenario in order to show that his tactic is to interrupt and thus prevent her answers. She need to change the speed he set up.
Bill Narvey Said:
he may be bright and accomplished, but not a journalist nor a pundit as shown in this interview. His tactic was intentionally geared to overwhelm shaked by overtalking her, by interupting her, by never allowing her to speak… this is not journalism nor punditry… this is simply a dishonest attempt to give a false picture using dishonest tactics. In dealing with such folks an experienced person fluent in english would have known how to deal with it better. The only thing that could have been accomplished in that scenario by anyone would have been to demonstrate that Al Jazeera and Hassan had something to hide from their viewers which necessitated that they abandon proper journalism for censorship tactics.
Why would a justice minister be talking with al jazeera, why would any Israeli gov minister have an interview with A,J or any known hostile media, without a prior agreement as to how it is conducted? If there is no agreement then you must expect ambush.
Bill Narvey Said:
I would never be interested in anything he does after seeing the dishonest manner in which he conducted the interview. However, if I were an Israel gov minister I would have been well aware before attending of the ambush coming and the interviewers MO.
Who advised shaked to go to this station with this interviewer?
whoever gave this advice is the real disavantage… and if she did this on her own she needs to get a mirror and see things realistically. such poor judgment is unacceptable in a minister. One must be able to see their own weaknesses.
Shaked didn’t take him on. She just ignored him and attempted to make her points. She also stood her ground. But she didn’t best himHe dominated. She should have attempted to clear some space for herself by telling him to stop interrupting Or by interrupting him repeatedly by telling him he has yet to allow her to give a full answer. She shouldn’t let him speak just as he wouldn’t let her speak. But this takes a lot of experience in these types of interviews. She will get better as her English gets better. All in all I was proud of her.
Rats, I guess my edit time ran out & my edits disappeared. I was writing that it was more of an ambush than an interview and it reminded me of the CNBC questions at the last Republican debate. I think these types need to interview ShmuelHaLevi2 or Yamit82.
I could only stand 2 min 29 seconds of the interview.
@Max – Did the CBC get Trudeau elected? Will the GoC have a different stance on Israel now that Harper is out?
As much as I would like to be able to agree with the sentiments expressed in this commentary string and say that Shaked stood up to and bested Al Jazeera journalist and interviewer, Mehdi Hassan, it just didn’t happen.
What is often lost sight of when reacting to Muslim journalists-pundits-interviewers who engage in anti-Israel biased writing or interviews is to assume that they are knuckle dragging unintelligent, antisemitic bigots whose ignorance, bias and lies should be so obvious that fair minded readers and listeners without such prior anti-Israel/antisemitic bias, will reject all they say and imply.
That simply is not the case. That was evident in this interview. It was Mehdi Hassan who did a real number on Shaked. By his questions and reactions to Shaked’s answers, Hassan cast Israel in a bad light and cast Shaked as an Israeli politician who was denying the reality of the injustice being done by Israel to the Palestinian people.
Shaked’s less than perfect fluency in English is what so disadvantaged her. The likes of a Ron Prosser, for instance likely would have not only matched Hassan’s craftily framed questions, but would have undone him.
Mehdi Hassan is a bright accomplished journalist, interviewer and pundit and he is of course definitely anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. http://www.aljazeera.com/profile/mehdi-hasan.html
For a number of Hassan’s pro-Palestinian-anti-Israel articles, see the first Google page that came up: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Mehdi+Hasan+israel+palestinians
Ayelet Shaked did very well – only one thing wrong – she said “thank you very much” at the end.
At the end she should have denounced the entire interview as spurious and dishonest with only the intent to demonize Israel and Israelis. She should have denounced the interviewer as waging propaganda war agaisnt Israel and therefore was engaging as the propaganda arm of Jihad. He was using freedom of speech with a dishonest intent. She should have said bluntly that the interviewer was acting in aid of terrorism and Jihad and fomenting hatred and was just as guilty for terrorist acts as those who committed them.
It’s about time someone said this upfront to the terrorist media – for that is what it is Terrorist Propaganda Media conducting a propaganda war in aid of a murderous Terrorist Islamic Jihad.
…
She should have said at the end when he said “thank you” – “You are not welcome, I regard you as the propaganda arm of a murderous Terrorist Islamic Jihad which has the intent of annihilating Israel. Your interview is totally spurious.”
In actuality the BBC doesn’t seem to save it’s own broadcasts on the link I gave .
I found the interview with Yair Lapid by interviewer Stephen Sackur on youtube – listen if you have the stomach – take some anti-nausea meds first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn-OGw4ijYA
It’s not just prejudice – it’s a propaganda war.
The Canadian public, for one, doesn’t realize it is a propaganda war – they don’t realize they are being presented with only one of two narratives – the other narrative – the truth never sees the light of day. The first message to get out to the MSM is that there is a propaganda war – and explain why it is there and what the consequences are.
The propaganda war is more deadly than any single terrorist attack. All throughout Canada Muslim culture has oppressed Canadians and oppressed Democracy yet because of the effectiveness of the propaganda war the news about it is silenced and defense against the oppression has been stifled.
CBC is almost as bad as BBC – they are biased I hear it over and over again. It’s sickening to listen to especially when I know the questions they are NOT asking and the truth that they avoid. They have an agenda and the agenda overrides all semblance of truth and honesty.
Listen to this ep of BBC Hardtalk (rebroadcast on the sister bigot channel – CBC) – I think Yair Lapid could have done better, especially when the interviewer basically threatened that Israel (the dictator) would be annihilated if they didn’t give into Palestinian demands – which had the intent to annihilate Israel if given in to of course. Yair Lapid could have better pointed this out. The hostility and hate of the British interviewer absolutely drenches the airwaves.
There needs to be some Israeli Study center to analyze all the typical propaganda attacks and lies and provide fact sheets and even training courses etc for all public figures and those interested on how to counter the spurious charges and arguments – because in fact so many that are the victims of such interviews do not know how to strike back at the Jihadist nerve points in their propaganda – they are not prepared for it.
Listen while is is still hosted:
Reviews analyzing the prejudice:
————————————-
http://bbcwatch.org/2015/10/23/selective-framing-inaccuracies-and-omission-of-context-on-bbcs-hardtalk/
—————————–
http://bbcwatch.org/2015/10/26/bbc-hardtalk-for-israel-softchat-for-palestinians/comment-page-1/
@ bernard ross:
Islam is advancing, it is vicious, bestial and the opposition is meek, dispirited, always ready to be on the defensive. That makes the Islamic talking heads,,, (no pun)… self assured, insolent, abusive way above the level commonly affecting ALL Islamic creeps.
Islam declared war on us long ago and in WAR one never, ever allows the enemy co control the field of any confrontation. Not ever. Islam is involved in total WAR against Israel and Jews.
Why does the idiotic, betraying, sabotaging so called government of Israel send one of its most valuable and true ministers to face alone that slaughter job?
Our heroine is young and inexperienced even if a great Jewess and Netanyahu sent her, intentionally, to face that ghastly muslim on the enemies terms.
There is nothing to talk about with Islam. Islam must be rolled back to its hovels and if it raises, destroyed.
If Netanyahu was a true leader of ours he would have never allowed our ministers to submit to “interviews” by Al Jezzerah, BBC, CNN, NBC… “ha’aretz”, NYT’s, LAT’s,
On the contrary, expel them, harshly deal with the enemy’s TV, Radio and printed materials agents and marauders. Stomp the spies planted here as well.
Bottom line about the internal enemies here
The so called president of Israel, the “former GSS head” and many other renegades INTENTIONALLY provide the enemy with material to harm us all. And they openly assault Jews and Jewish Heritage at all times.
There was an “interview” published by a local cesspool passing as newspaper right after the sharon, olmert, lapid, livni supreme courtiers aided by Netanyahu effected “disengagement”. During that long diatribe against the Jewish victims of the Pogrom in Gush Kativ, “four former heads” of the SHABAK, aka G SS, suggested a need to murder certain Jews. Others part of the Oslo criminal conspiracy said for the record, the same.
Netanyahu, his self appointed so called supreme courtiers and much of the pretend military command as well as police are dedicated to destroy Jewish life centers. Homes, Synagogues, learning institutions, cemeteries, the Temple’s Mount, Kever David, etc.
The houses of murderous Islamic beasts are defended for years or forever, Jewish Synagogues, Schools, etc, immediately if not sooner destroyed.
Jewish potential leaders are detained w/o trials.
Islamic bestial murderers are released by the thousands.
We must have a new set of FREELY elected Jewish leaders or we all will be made by the renegades into the ultimate “victims of peace”
I thnk the interviewer was on crack judging from his frantic speech.
shaked should have told him to be quiet until she finished answering the questions and not to interrupt her before she finished her sentences. He deserved to be dressed down thoroughly for his rude and dishonest behavior.
Well done! Great interview! She can help be the media voice where Bennett has been silenced.
Thanks for posting this Ted!
This was recorded October 1st.
What I liked about it was a Jewish woman dressing down an Arab man.
A woman doing is even more humiliating to an Arab despite the fact she is also a lowly Jew.
It need not be added here she’s correct Oslo is long past its expiration date.
KOL HAKAVOD to our heroine Ms. Shaked confronting the TV front working to destroy our state.
Yet, I must publicly denounce the immensity of the gruesome damage, sabotage, venom emanating from the disgraceful piece of flotsam passing as president and the poisonous bites of the MAPAI-MAPAM incubated “former security services” head. Those individuals and the whole of the Oslo entente will have to face FREELY elected courts. Those renegades intentionally provide the enemy with material to harm us all. They must face true judges elected by the people. We all remember four of the later specimens, “the four GSS heads” publishing an interview via a main newspaper just after the Gush Katif “disengagement” pogrom and ethnic cleansing by the sharon gang. Those four degenerates directly promoted the “need” of murdering certain Jews…
The GGS “Jewish Sektion” is a copy of the USSR “Yevseksiah” of nefarious fame.