Dick, I agree and have heard the same. Bill, there are a lot of companies desperate for exposure so they'll pay people to throw together an article singing a stock's praises. Or worse, will give them a pre-written article and the author just slaps his name on it to give it the appearance of being unbiased. The better authors will at least disclose this. The worst of the bunch won't.
While I can't swear that's the case here, CNA Finance does have that reputation. A good way to differentiate the good sites from the bad is to see if they'll post anything, or if they have an editorial team which ensures certain levels of quality and guidelines are met. All the sites Dick mentioned do the latter, CNA Fiannce does the former.
Another good way to tell is if an author suddenly appears to be an expert in every field, writing about any possible topic. That does certainly seem to be the case here.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that I don't think Bibi is particularly interested in a 2-state solution, but I think that's simply because previous Prime Ministers offerd so much more than he'd be willing to offer and even they were told no. And that the Palestinians seem more interested in violence than peace. In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack shocked the world (and angered many Israelis) by agreeing to all Palestinian demands for peace and yet Yasir Arafat still said no.
Bill Clinton and many others firmly laid the blame on Arafat for this. Even Arafat was surprised that Barack would be willing to give in to all demands - even giving up part of sacred Jerusalem. But his response was that all rhetoric aside, if he actually made peace with Israel, he woudl be assinated. Arafat had also made many speeches (in Arabic) stating clearly that he was following Mohammed's example and offering peace only as a ruse to secure more land from which to launch a war.
It's difficult to have peace when neither side trusts the other.
It pains me to say this as I generally enjoy your work, but in this case I fear your lack of historical knowledge and/or possible bias (intentional or not) seems evident in this post. Let me respectfully take it piece by piece to give you an opposing viewpoint.
1. Almost your entire argument hinges on the fact that since the UN condemned Israel, they must be the aggressor. That would be like saying the US was the aggressor on 9/11 if the UN said so. It's only valid if the UN can be viewed as an honest, unbiased broker which it is not. It's no secret that the UN's policies are determined by politics and horse trading. With so many Arab countries and other states who couldn't care less about Israel willing to trade votes for matters they actually do care about, it's become nothing more than a platform to constantly incite against Israel. Not to mention European countries with burgeoning Arab populations and Arab Oil can influence many votes as well. More proof of this is below...
How can the UN be a neutral/fair venue when out of all the counties in the world, only ONE - Israel is not allowed to be on the security council. That's right, countries such as North Korea, Syria and Iran can be, but not Israel. These countries can also head the Human Rights council, even though these countries have the worst records on the books. Israel is the ONLY country which, as a matter policy, must be reviewed at every single UN Human Rights session. Countries which have murdered its own people by the thousands are completely ignored. It's sad that the UN does nothing to protect these people and instead focus on a country which every day is struggling to survive against those who wish to destroy it. Probably the most notorious, blatant bias was the infamous 1975 "Zionism equals racism" Resolution 3379. In 2014, the UN issued 23 condemnations. Out of the entire world, 20 out of these 23 condemnations were against little Israel. My God, Israel must be the most deplorable country on Earth. Yet all the abuses and terror we've seen in the rest of the world went completely ignored. It's as if all the UN does is watch Israel all day long and ignore all other suffering, including when Israel itself is attached. It is hard to dispute this bias, but if you want more evidence, UN Watch (unwatch.org) has done an excellent job of documenting this bias over the years.
2. Israel, which has had a Jewish presence for the last 3000 years was controlled by the British at the time, was offered to be split between the Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted the Partition Plan, the Arabs rejected it and instead declared war and invaded the country slaughtering Jews wherever they found them. But the Jews, many of whom had just escaped Hitler's ovens, won a surprising victory. At no other time has a people declared war, lost and then cried foul. It is a fact that the US did not help Israel at all during this war and refused to supply or even sell them weapons. They had to buy them from Czechoslovakia!
3. While it is generally assumed that Israel has nuclear weapons, this has never been confirmed and Israel maintains ambiguity on this matter. However, again it was not the US as you said, but rather France who helped Israel with its defensive nuclear capabilities.
4. To imply that Israel started the 1967 war is both disingenuous and a betrayal of actual history. It was well known that an attack on Israel was imminent and the Arab countries don't deny this, so why would you? Egypt even announced they were going to attack and ordered peace keeping troops out of the Sinai - and though you say Israel's allies won't let anything happen to it, all these troops simply got up and left, freeing up Egypt to invade. Israel's well timed preemptive attack to destroy Egypt's Air Force while the planes were still on the ground help to keep the war short, and likely saved countless lives. No other country would have acted differently.
5. The US has vetoed past resolutions because Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and the only country that shares America's values. We fund countless Arab countries that don't exactly try to hide the fact that they'd be happy if our country went up in flames. The US also recognize that condemning Israel serves no purpose than to reward terrorism. Blaming on it on some “all powerful” Israel Lobby or some grand Zionist scheme is something out of the Protocols of Zion and a common tale spread by those who wish to discredit Israel. Don't help them by spreading this lie.. I'd say many lobbyist groups are far more effective. From insuring that that unhealthy food, cigarettes are weapons are sold. For example, the fact that anyone can go to a gun show and buy an automatic assault rifle without any background checks is thanks to the gun lobby. In this case, America knows that Israel is on the front lines of fighting terror and are the only country in the Middle East which has our back.
But Israel can't always rely on the it's allies to protect it. Just as they refused to sell Israel weapons in '48 when they were attacked by five well armed Arab armies. Just as they abandoned Israel when Egypt and other countries announced they would invade in '67 and even just now as Obama has turned his back on Israel. It's very difficult to entrust that America will always protect it. And if Iran nukes Israel, whether Obama would retaliate in kind (which I doubt- he's ignored his own red lines before, i.e. Syria), it will be little comfort to the nuclear wasteland formerly known as Israel.
6. Yes, American gives Israel more aid than any other country in the Middle East. But Israel is the only non-Arab country in the ME. If you add up all the aid the US sends to Arab countries in the Middle East, it far exceeds what Israel earns! Israel's aid is a drop in the bucket and 100% of it must be spent on American products - so it goes right back into our economy. Arab's aid often ends up in lining corrupt politicians pockets or worse, funds the incitement of terror. These are countries that often work against America's own interests.
7. Violence in the Middle East has nothing to do with a perceived US bias against Israel. The Middle East has been a hot bed of violent extremism since long before Israel or even the US was a country. And it’s far more violent outside of Israel – Arab dictators kill far more of their own people than Israel ever has. And look how violent Isis has become in Iraq and other neighboring countries. Again, blaming Israel is shameful and disingenuous. The most common mistake American make is thinking that Middle Easterners have Western values and aspirations but it’s a very different cultural mentality over there.
I realize you won't like me disagreeing with you or calling you out on various inaccuracies but I do so in hopes that you realize that some of your fundamental facts are either wrong, or the sources where you found them were skewed by bias or cherry picked to leave out relevant and critical facts. Thanks for taking the time to read my response.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I checked out your site and Twitter profile to read more by you. I'm not sure if you didn't realize, or simply don't care, but you should know that what you follow on Twitter is public and viewable by everyone. But hey, who am I to judge. To each their own.
Interesting read but I have to take issue with your comment that "For creating new content, there are no barriers to entry." How can you say that? Creating a quality TV program or movie can take hundreds of millions of dollars. Especially if it involves a cast with star power. #Netflix and #Amazon definitely excel at this. Personally I think #Hulu and #YouTube fall short. $NFLX$AMZN
No one believed me, but I knew there were many people who were planning to vote #Trump, but didn't want to admit it. They didn't want to be viewed as condoning his sexist or racist views.
Latest Comments
Consider Diversifying Your Portfolio By Investing In Japan - Here's Why
Is there a particular stock you would recommend, @[Vivian Lewis](user:4662)?
DarioHealth (DRIO) Stock - A Disruptive Force In The Diabetes Monitoring Industry
Dick, I agree and have heard the same. Bill, there are a lot of companies desperate for exposure so they'll pay people to throw together an article singing a stock's praises. Or worse, will give them a pre-written article and the author just slaps his name on it to give it the appearance of being unbiased. The better authors will at least disclose this. The worst of the bunch won't.
While I can't swear that's the case here, CNA Finance does have that reputation. A good way to differentiate the good sites from the bad is to see if they'll post anything, or if they have an editorial team which ensures certain levels of quality and guidelines are met. All the sites Dick mentioned do the latter, CNA Fiannce does the former.
Another good way to tell is if an author suddenly appears to be an expert in every field, writing about any possible topic. That does certainly seem to be the case here.
Could This Be One Of The Biggest Winners Of The Electric Car Boom? (SPONSORED POST)
Sounds promising! $WCTXF
The Latest UN Security Council Condemnation Of Israel – A Little History
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that I don't think Bibi is particularly interested in a 2-state solution, but I think that's simply because previous Prime Ministers offerd so much more than he'd be willing to offer and even they were told no. And that the Palestinians seem more interested in violence than peace. In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack shocked the world (and angered many Israelis) by agreeing to all Palestinian demands for peace and yet Yasir Arafat still said no.
Bill Clinton and many others firmly laid the blame on Arafat for this. Even Arafat was surprised that Barack would be willing to give in to all demands - even giving up part of sacred Jerusalem. But his response was that all rhetoric aside, if he actually made peace with Israel, he woudl be assinated. Arafat had also made many speeches (in Arabic) stating clearly that he was following Mohammed's example and offering peace only as a ruse to secure more land from which to launch a war.
It's difficult to have peace when neither side trusts the other.
The Latest UN Security Council Condemnation Of Israel – A Little History
It pains me to say this as I generally enjoy your work, but in this case I fear your lack of historical knowledge and/or possible bias (intentional or not) seems evident in this post. Let me respectfully take it piece by piece to give you an opposing viewpoint.
1. Almost your entire argument hinges on the fact that since the UN condemned Israel, they must be the aggressor. That would be like saying the US was the aggressor on 9/11 if the UN said so. It's only valid if the UN can be viewed as an honest, unbiased broker which it is not. It's no secret that the UN's policies are determined by politics and horse trading. With so many Arab countries and other states who couldn't care less about Israel willing to trade votes for matters they actually do care about, it's become nothing more than a platform to constantly incite against Israel. Not to mention European countries with burgeoning Arab populations and Arab Oil can influence many votes as well. More proof of this is below...
How can the UN be a neutral/fair venue when out of all the counties in the world, only ONE - Israel is not allowed to be on the security council. That's right, countries such as North Korea, Syria and Iran can be, but not Israel. These countries can also head the Human Rights council, even though these countries have the worst records on the books. Israel is the ONLY country which, as a matter policy, must be reviewed at every single UN Human Rights session. Countries which have murdered its own people by the thousands are completely ignored. It's sad that the UN does nothing to protect these people and instead focus on a country which every day is struggling to survive against those who wish to destroy it. Probably the most notorious, blatant bias was the infamous 1975 "Zionism equals racism" Resolution 3379. In 2014, the UN issued 23 condemnations. Out of the entire world, 20 out of these 23 condemnations were against little Israel. My God, Israel must be the most deplorable country on Earth. Yet all the abuses and terror we've seen in the rest of the world went completely ignored. It's as if all the UN does is watch Israel all day long and ignore all other suffering, including when Israel itself is attached. It is hard to dispute this bias, but if you want more evidence, UN Watch (unwatch.org) has done an excellent job of documenting this bias over the years.
2. Israel, which has had a Jewish presence for the last 3000 years was controlled by the British at the time, was offered to be split between the Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted the Partition Plan, the Arabs rejected it and instead declared war and invaded the country slaughtering Jews wherever they found them. But the Jews, many of whom had just escaped Hitler's ovens, won a surprising victory. At no other time has a people declared war, lost and then cried foul. It is a fact that the US did not help Israel at all during this war and refused to supply or even sell them weapons. They had to buy them from Czechoslovakia!
3. While it is generally assumed that Israel has nuclear weapons, this has never been confirmed and Israel maintains ambiguity on this matter. However, again it was not the US as you said, but rather France who helped Israel with its defensive nuclear capabilities.
4. To imply that Israel started the 1967 war is both disingenuous and a betrayal of actual history. It was well known that an attack on Israel was imminent and the Arab countries don't deny this, so why would you? Egypt even announced they were going to attack and ordered peace keeping troops out of the Sinai - and though you say Israel's allies won't let anything happen to it, all these troops simply got up and left, freeing up Egypt to invade. Israel's well timed preemptive attack to destroy Egypt's Air Force while the planes were still on the ground help to keep the war short, and likely saved countless lives. No other country would have acted differently.
5. The US has vetoed past resolutions because Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and the only country that shares America's values. We fund countless Arab countries that don't exactly try to hide the fact that they'd be happy if our country went up in flames. The US also recognize that condemning Israel serves no purpose than to reward terrorism. Blaming on it on some “all powerful” Israel Lobby or some grand Zionist scheme is something out of the Protocols of Zion and a common tale spread by those who wish to discredit Israel. Don't help them by spreading this lie.. I'd say many lobbyist groups are far more effective. From insuring that that unhealthy food, cigarettes are weapons are sold. For example, the fact that anyone can go to a gun show and buy an automatic assault rifle without any background checks is thanks to the gun lobby. In this case, America knows that Israel is on the front lines of fighting terror and are the only country in the Middle East which has our back.
But Israel can't always rely on the it's allies to protect it. Just as they refused to sell Israel weapons in '48 when they were attacked by five well armed Arab armies. Just as they abandoned Israel when Egypt and other countries announced they would invade in '67 and even just now as Obama has turned his back on Israel. It's very difficult to entrust that America will always protect it. And if Iran nukes Israel, whether Obama would retaliate in kind (which I doubt- he's ignored his own red lines before, i.e. Syria), it will be little comfort to the nuclear wasteland formerly known as Israel.
6. Yes, American gives Israel more aid than any other country in the Middle East. But Israel is the only non-Arab country in the ME. If you add up all the aid the US sends to Arab countries in the Middle East, it far exceeds what Israel earns! Israel's aid is a drop in the bucket and 100% of it must be spent on American products - so it goes right back into our economy. Arab's aid often ends up in lining corrupt politicians pockets or worse, funds the incitement of terror. These are countries that often work against America's own interests.
7. Violence in the Middle East has nothing to do with a perceived US bias against Israel. The Middle East has been a hot bed of violent extremism since long before Israel or even the US was a country. And it’s far more violent outside of Israel – Arab dictators kill far more of their own people than Israel ever has. And look how violent Isis has become in Iraq and other neighboring countries. Again, blaming Israel is shameful and disingenuous. The most common mistake American make is thinking that Middle Easterners have Western values and aspirations but it’s a very different cultural mentality over there.
I realize you won't like me disagreeing with you or calling you out on various inaccuracies but I do so in hopes that you realize that some of your fundamental facts are either wrong, or the sources where you found them were skewed by bias or cherry picked to leave out relevant and critical facts. Thanks for taking the time to read my response.
The World Of Gold Is About To Change
Excellent points Jason, and very well put. These have been my primary concerns as well.
Interview With New Realty Startup, WhoseYourLandlord
Nice idea but I assume there are others already doing this. Who do you view as your competition?
What Comes After The Trump Rally?
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I checked out your site and Twitter profile to read more by you. I'm not sure if you didn't realize, or simply don't care, but you should know that what you follow on Twitter is public and viewable by everyone. But hey, who am I to judge. To each their own.
Will Netflix Ever Disappoint Investors?
Interesting read but I have to take issue with your comment that "For creating new content, there are no barriers to entry." How can you say that? Creating a quality TV program or movie can take hundreds of millions of dollars. Especially if it involves a cast with star power. #Netflix and #Amazon definitely excel at this. Personally I think #Hulu and #YouTube fall short. $NFLX $AMZN
Delirium Of Trump Mania Wins Mr. Brexit US Presidential Election
No one believed me, but I knew there were many people who were planning to vote #Trump, but didn't want to admit it. They didn't want to be viewed as condoning his sexist or racist views.