Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

The Jerusalem Post is the media sponsor of the Jewish and Israeli Blog Awards. I’ve written in the past about the overload (90-95%) of right-wing pro-Israel blogs nominated in JIBA’s political categories. I’ve also written critically of the Jerusalem Post’s involvement in the program. Today, I’d like to ask why the Jerusalem Post tacitly endorses racist speech by featuring, in the JIB Awards, blogs redolent with anti-Arab hate?

I recently read a critique of Pajamas Media’s failure to create a successful advertising program. One point raised was that many advertisers are leery of associating themselves with blogs which feature (even in the comments section) abuse, insult, invective, racism and verbal threats. I presume that JP has considered this issue and feels it is not important. But I think it is.

Let’s look at one of the megablogs: Little Green Footballs. Here’s what a generally positive (undeservedly so in my opinion) review of the site at Wikipedia said on this subject:

…Critics have interpreted Johnson’s selective posting and retitling of news items related to Islam (e.g., “AP Reveals: Arabs Hate America, Israel”) as a form of hate speech .

Others point to the hyperbolic language…and dehumanizing slurs employed by some commenters (e.g., “Paleosimians,” “Oil Ticks,” “koranimals,” “ragheads”) and charge the webmaster with encouraging groupthink, jingoism, and Islamophobia.

And to bring Wikipedia up to date, here are a few recent headlines at LGF:

Muslim Gang Runs UK Prison
Palestinians Choose Terror (about Hamas’ election victory)
Palestinian Civil War Watch (about friction between Hamas and Fatah)
Hamas Will Keep on Killin’ (about Hamas’ refusal to renounce violence)
Flying Pig Moment of the Day (a demeaning reference to the Muslim custom of not eating pork)
345 Killed in Annual Sacrifice (”It’s time for the annual human sacrifice at the Hajj pilgrimage, as this year’s Hajj stampede kills hundreds during the “Stoning the Devil” ritual…”)
Jihadis Increasing the Kill Rate (”The global jihad’s latest tactic deliberately plays on the West’s worst fears: HIV Bombers.”)
Killed Because He Wouldn’t Convert to Islam
Interview with the Murder Mom (about an interview with a Palestinian mother whose sons became suicide bombers)

But let’s not stop with LGF. Let’s talk about the JIB Awards-nominated Atlas Shrugs, which features a B-52 bomber with the caption: “Take back Jerusalem. Bring on the B-52s” (a ‘jocular’ call for the extermination of Jerusalem’s Arab population).

Here’s some “wisdom” from the JIBA-nominated, Protein Wisdom:

…Exploding Arabs absolutely cannot be good for the environment — what with all that heat and those burning chemicals and what not.

Which means the Jews are to blame for the CO2 blanket, as well — which in turn is responsible for killing furry forest dwellers of all stripes.

A banner spotted at yesterday’s “peace march” in D.C.: “Jews: killers of all things cuddly!”

(Okay, so I made that up. But mark my words: it’s coming…)

And how about Only in Israel’s ‘fabulous’ Rachel Corrie pancake jokes (about the International Solidarity Movement activist murdered by an Israeli bulldozer driver).

So what gives, Jerusalem Post? Derek Fattal, the Post’s director of internet services provided this disclaimer to me:

Inclusion in the competition does not suggest any support for the content - whatever its political viewpoint or religious persausion - by The Jerusalem Post.

Thus the claim is that the blogs’ content has nothing to do with the Post, even though the JIB Awards highlight and promote the very same blogs? The links to these blogs at the Post’s website send new readers their way and advance their hate-filled agenda. If the Post promotes them then how far are we from saying you endorse them? And what does that say about the editorial slant of this newspaper? Derek also wrote to me that the Post holds pretty much to a straight down the center political line. Would you mind explaining to me how promoting these blogs through the JIB Awards gibes with a “centrist” editorial outlook? Perhaps a slight contradiction?

If there was some ideological balance within the political categories I might buy the Post’s disclaimer that it doesn’t endorse the views of any individual blog. But with almost universal right-wing blogs (in the political categories) it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that these blogs promote a vision of pro-Israel advocacy and anti-Arab hysteria in accord with the Post’s.

I’ll be writing to Derek to ask if he wishes to response to this post on behalf of the Post.

Finally, I wonder what the Post makes of its partner and founder of the JIB Awards, Aussie Dave, when he calls critics like this one “dickhead.” Well, actually he didn’t quite come out and say it but we’ll let him speak for himself below and you can be the judge. In a feeble attempt at mockery, he often calls me “Dick” or “Silverstein” to which I replied that those were not names of address I find acceptable. This was his ‘charming’ response:

“Dick and Silverstein are your names. I do not see the need to refer to you by your first name…So deal with it. Just be thankful I don’t give you the middle name “head.”

And while we’re at it, why not mention this little taunt:

That’s nice DICK

So I’d ask the Post, don’t you feel such juvenile behavior reflects poorly not only on the sadsack himself, but on the JIB Awards and by extension the Post?

tags anti-Arab, aussie_dave, hate_speech, jerusalem_post, jewish_and_israeli_blog_awards, jib_awards, racism

I can’t tell you how many different times and ways I’ve tried to get Tikun Olam linked or featured at media websites. Sites like Salon.com, Slate.com, Nytimes.com, Truthdig, Huffington Post, you name it, and I’ve e mailed them about my content. No takers. Perhaps I don’t get enough traffic or I don’t have enough “juice.” I dunno. I’ve also suggested this blog to those who write blog roundups at those sites. No dice. Then along comes the Financial Times website writing a blog roundup of reactions to Google’s admission that it censors Chinese search results. What do you know, there I am with a “favorable mention:”

“’Don’t be evil’ indeed. Google needs a few lessons in living up to its founders’ motto. It is certainly complicit in evil nowadays regarding its behaviour in China, said Richard Silverstein on Tikun Olam.

And I didn’t even ask for it! But I’ll take it gladly. Maybe this gets me into the right ballpark and other media sites might start taking some notice?

tags blog_roundup, censorship, china, financial_times, google

It is dangerous to parse pronouncements coming from Hamas by crediting them with too much optimism, but I find Mahmoud Al-Zahar’s interview with Wolf Blitzer to be both maddening and intriguing at the same time (interview transcript). While there were certainly no breakthroughs in his statements, and plenty to be deeply concerned about, I found Al-Zahar’s change of emphasis from the normal run of the mill Hamas talking points to be intriguing.

While he refused to turn his back on Hamas’ professed desire to destroy Israel, he presented his perspective on this in a more realistic way than he has in the past:

Blitzer: If Israel were to accept a complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, including giving up East Jerusalem, would you then accept a two-state solution?

AL-ZAHAR: We can accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied in ‘67, and we can give a long-term hudna.…Believe me, Israel is not going to recognize a state even on a square meter in the hands of the Palestinians, because they are not accepting [anything] except the Jewish state. So at that time, we can give long-term hudna or long-term truce, can be (inaudible). More than that, under certain conditions. And after that, let time heal (ph)…

BLITZER: …Do you want to establish a dialogue, conversations, negotiations, talks, whatever you call it, with Israeli officials? Will you talk to them?

AL-ZAHAR: Negotiation is not our aim. Negotiation is a method. If the Israeli is ready to give us the national demand, to withdraw from the occupied area ‘67, to release our detainees, to stop their aggression, to make a geographic linkage between Gaza Strip and West Bank, at that time, and with assurance from other side, we are going to accept to establish our independent state at that time, and give up one or two, 10, 15 years time in order to see what is the real intention of Israel after that.

While I’m not an expert on Hamas and don’t know what statements they’ve made in the past on these subjects, I’ve never heard a Hamas official (and Al-Zahar is reputed to be a hardline representative) say the group would be willing to accept Israel’s return to 1967 boundaries as a basis of recognition or hudna.

I think Al-Zahar’s argument on the return to 1967 borders shows some sophistication on his part since Israel’s refusal to accept an international border opens it to accusations of territorial aggrandizement at the expense of the Palestinians:

BLITZER: Are you prepared to accept a two-state solution, Palestine living alongside Israel?

AL-ZAHAR: First of all, I would like to address that. PLO, in 1988 accept[ed] existence of two states.

Since that time, Israelis expanded the borders, occupied ‘67, confiscated our right in Jerusalem, put a separating wall between the people and their own homeland. And since that time nobody is able to live as a human being.

They [the PLO] accepted that and they signed an agreement…But, tell me, what is the border of Israel right now? What is the official border to accept this state?…

If we are going to say we are accepting the two states, on what border? Border of ‘67? It is already taken by the big settlement around Jerusalem. Mr. Olmert, just yesterday, said Jerusalem is an eternal capital for Israel. Jerusalem is a united city for Israel. So, about what are we going to accept these argument?

If Israel is ready to tell the people, the international community, what is the official border, after that we are going to answer the question.

I think he has a reasonable point here. Israel has laid down conditions for negotiations, saying it will not talk till the Palestinians end terror. Hamas here makes a reasonable condition that Israel first make its territorial claims explicit before negotiations might begin. Of course, Al-Zahar advances this condition because he knows that Israel would never negotiate solely on the basis of a return to 1967 borders. Clinton’s Camp David agreement (rejected by Arafat) called for a return to 1967 borders minus 5-10% of Palestinian territory on which Israel’s major settlement bloc stands. In return, Palestine would have gotten a transfer of Israeli territory in the Negev. It seems clear to be that such a proposal would be a non-starter for Hamas. Which in turn means that Hamas’s sincerity in declaring a long term hudna may likely never be tested. A very cynical ploy on his part though we can also say that Israel’s statements on the same subject have been equally cynical.

You’ll note that Al-Zahar is quick to undermine his offer by declaring his “certainty” that Israel will never accept the creation of a Palestinian state no matter what statements it makes to the world community. While of course many Mideast commentators and Israelis themselves join Al-Zahar in questioning the sincerity of Israel’s claim that it would accept such a state, it would’ve been far more diplomatic for Hamas to put its offer on the table and not prejudge the other side’s (bad) intentions. I think this is an example of a Hamas which is not “ready for primetime” on the international stage. But I digress.

Al-Zahar has another interesting response to a Blitzer question about Hamas’ commitment to annihilate Israel, which indicates a certain pragmatism within Hamas that may eventually trump its arch-rejectionist ideology:

All the time, you are describing [us as] not accepting Israel to exist. I think it is unfair to speak like that, because we are — we are not a supreme power. We are a single people who are living in these occupied territories. Why is our enemy having an atomic bomb? Who is going to destroy the other? Hamas is going to destroy atomic state, or the atomic state is threatening the international security, especially Middle East security?

Why are you insisted to describe us as if we are having the power to destroy Israel? I think it’s fair to speak about the ability of Israel to destroy all the Middle East by their 200 bombs (inaudible) can destroy all the Middle East and Arabic countries…

I note that Al-Zahar accepts the basic premise that Hamas cannot destroy Israel even if it wished to. So while of course everyone outside of Hamas, Iran and Al Qaeda wants to hear the golden words renouncing this objective (and we haven’t), I do think it is progress when the group’s leading representative accepts reality on this score.

Now for the bad stuff. Al-Zahar’s interview also included a lot of Iranian style lunacy and gross distortion of reality. It turns out that my friend, Ray Hanania is right about Hamas’ intent to create an Islamic theocratic society in Palestine:

BLITZER: What about a future Palestinian state? A Hamas would like to see that as part of an Islamic theocracy as opposed to a secular Palestinian state. Is that right?

AL-ZAHAR: Do you think the secular system is serving any nation? Secular system allows homosexuality, allows corruption, allows the spread of the loss of natural immunity, like AIDS. We are here living under Islamic control. Nothing will change. Islam is our constitution. It’s controlling our relationship among the Palestinian society, among the Arabic, and also with the international community.

If you are going to give a hint that Islamic societies will be against the modern life, I think it’s incorrect. Please ask Crown Prince (inaudible) the role of Islam as a major constructive system in the human civilization, building hospitals, universities, while Europe in the Middle Ages were sinking in a deep corruption…

Al-Zahar can swear up and down that Hamas does not and will not accept financial subsidies from Iran nor will it take its marching orders from Iran, but what is this if not a recipe for an Iranian-style Islamic theocracy? The only thing that reassures me is that while Iran’s ayatollah’s never were elected to their positions, Hamas has been elected in a free and fair election. That means that unless Hamas plans to do away with such elections in future (a disastrous mistake should they try it), they could be booted out should Palestinians’ tire of the group’s theocratic notions.

Of course, his notions about AIDS and homosexuality are off the charts nuts, but one must hasten to add that many non-Islamic countries hold similar views. Compare Hamas’ ideas about AIDS with those of Thabo Mbeki, South Africa’s president. Not far off. I think the proper response is not to dismiss Hamas out of hand as a band of extremist monsters, but to probe their beliefs to see if they can moderate or change when they are engaged by the outside world. In other words, I urge the international community to judiciously and cautiously attempt to create a dialogue with this movement. It may prove to be futile in the end. But it’s better to try and fail than to immediately dismiss Hamas as a rogue outlaw movement with which we can never do business.

Finally, Al-Zahar raises an anti-Israel shibboleth I’d never heard before (and I thought I’d heard most of ‘em):

AL-ZAHAR:…Tell me, what is the border of Israel right now?…The Israelis are putting on their flag two blue lines. That means the river Nile and the Euphrates…

BLITZER: The two blue lines on the Israeli flag that are on top of the Star of David, is that what you’re talking about?

AL-ZAHAR: They are indicating — they are saying that frankly — it is indicating the River Nile and Euphrates (inaudible). On one coin, the gold shekel, there was — it was a map, including Palestine, Sinai, Syria, Jordan and part of Saudi Arabia. So they are not denying that. Ask them about this question…

BLITZER: Well, let’s just be clear about this. What you’re saying is that Israel wants to establish a state between the Nile and the Euphrates, is that what you’re saying?

AL-ZAHAR: Yes. It is written in their Bibles. They are even — it is written in the Knesset. That is the meaning of the David Star that was said as the land of Israel. This is the historical land of Israel.

I don’t make a claim to know every aspect of Zionist thought or practice, but I’d never heard this comment about the Israeli flag. It seems like the paranoiac fantasy of a deluded mind to me. Not that I’m saying Palestinians don’t have plenty of reasons to doubt Israel’s good intentions. But to look for conspiracies in every symbol of the state and Zionist ideology is really too much.

No doubt the basis for this charge lies in the Jabotinsky-era Likud anthem which declares “”one side of the Jordan is ours and so is the other.” By which it means the West Bank and Kingdom of Jordan. But this is a far cry from having Israeli designs on all the territory between the Nile and Euphrates. That’s purely the product of a fevered imagination. That being said, I have to add that there are equally paranoiac statements about Hamas, Palestinians and the Arab world emanating from Israelis, Jews and Dick Cheney, for that matter. I guess paranoia is a two way street.

tags 1967_border, cnn, hamas, israel, mahmoud_al-zahar, palestine, wolf_blitzer

I’d like to know what Democrats are doing in Washington, DC? Who are they representing? What principles are they upholding? I’ve been a Democrat all my life and will probably remain one for the rest of it…but they sure ain’t upholding my values by refusing to put up a fight against Sam Alito; or in the case of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, putting up a fight that is too little, too late (through no fault of their own–where are their Democratic colleagues?). I’m disgusted.

I’d like to know what they’re thinking? Is their strategy to assume that in another year they’ll retake control of the Congress and so regain control of the political agenda? Are they worried that if they use the filibuster that Republicans will then use it against them? But somehow if they keep their powder dry and don’t filibuster that Republicans in the minority will play nice with them and not filibuster Democratic bills and nominees? If that’s part of their thinking I think it’s very dicey thinking.

Where are the Democrats in Congress? Why aren’t they letting their voices be heard? Why are they bowing before the Bush agenda? If you’re from Washington State, e mail Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and tell them that their vote on this matters TO YOU. If you’re not from Washington State, find your senator here and send him or her an e mail right now.

I gotta tell you that I’ve always denounced third party campaigns from the left because I thought they allowed Republicans to win elections they shouldn’t have. That’s why I’ve always thought Ralph Nader was a political charlatan. But given the Democrats’ current spinelessness, they’ll have only themselves to blame if Ralph Nader or some other alternative figure mounts a vigorous presidential campaign that eats into Democratic votes. If it happens, all I can say is: “Democrats, you brought it on yourselves.”

tags alito_filibuster, democrats

I delight in pointing out the idiocy and anti-Arab racism in the blogs that are part of the Pajamas Media/Jewish & Israeli Blog Awards nexus.

Thanks to the intrepid LGF Watch I discovered this lovely cartoon running at Atlas Shrugs, a blog devoted to the undeniable truth that there is a vast anti-Semitic Islamic (aren’t the two contradictions in terms since Arabs are Semites?) conspiracy out to exterminate the Jewish race. Of course, Pamela, Atlas Shrugs’ blogmistress, seems to lose sight of the fact that a cartoon (this one drawn by the eminent Mideast analyst/wine marketer Hugh Macleod of Gapingvoid) calling for U.S. carpet bombing of Jerusalem’s Arab population might smack just a wee bit of an anti-Arab genocidal itch on the part of certain Jews, Israelis and their hangers-on (like Macleod).

After I read the caption on this cartoon, “Take back Jerusalem, bring on the B-52s,” I tried to figure out precisely what the cartoonist meant. Wipe out Jerusalem’s population, Jews and Arabs? Why?

Then I realized that if Pamela ran the cartoon it must mean that Hugh wants to wipe out the Arab population of Jerusalem. Then I thought: “cool.” We’ll use Curtis LeMay’s crafty old stratagem adapted for those pesky Arabs (instead of the Soviets). We all know they’re all out to get us. So why don’t we pre-empt ‘em and bomb ‘em all back to the Stone Age where they belong?

So let’s start with Jerusalem. What should our targets be? Let’s not be too timid here. Let’s have the courage of our convictions. We’re not gonna start with some wimpy PA building (the Israelis probably got those long ago anyway). Let’s go for the big cahuna and take out Al Aksa and Dome of the Rock. After that we can bring on those B-52s for carpetbagging all those East Jerusalem neighborhoods populated by A-rabs.

And while we’re at it, let’s not stop with Jerusalem. Let’s wipe out all those pesky Arab states who hate our guts anyway. Syria–phhht, Gone! Iran–phht, Gone! Gee, I’m getting to like this. So neat, so easy, so clean. What a way to solve a problem–a lot of problems. Israel won’t have to worry about terror or finishing that anti-mongrel Wall. What a savings! We also don’t have to worry about Iranian nukes anymore. Plus we save trouble for all the other countries of the world who were trying to get the Ayatollahs to see reason and cancel their nuke program.

Mideast commentators, Israelis and Palestinians have spilt much blood and ink trying to work out a solution to the conflict that would resolve the issue of Jerusalem for both sides. But they needn’t have bothered. Hugh and Pamela have it all figured out. I tell you, those right-wingers really do know how to solve problems!

Oh and to give you a sense of how callous and clueless dear Hugh is–one of his commenters on the cartoon asked: “Have you been to Jerusalem?” To which he replied: “No, Avi, but I would love to go.” I bet you would. Why don’t you start by visiting all those ‘awful’ Arab neighborhoods you’ve just suggested need vaporizing. And think about the real people (not cartoon characters) who live there. I swear some people never learned about the meaning of the words “human decency.” In our Jewish tradition, we are required in war to show even our enemies a certain level of decency. I guess Pamela never learned about those halachot.

Oh and to give you an idea of how inept Pamela is, the link she provides in her blog post to Hugh’s cartoon is wrong (I found the cartoon and linked to it properly above). And by the way, who do you think is a finalist competitor for a JIB Award, Atlas Shrugs of course. If she wins, then I’ll know there is justice in the world!

tags arabs, atlas_shrugs, gapingvoid, hugh_macleod, israel, jerusalem, muslims, palestinians

Yesterday, I wrote a post about Palestinian bloggers' response to Hamas' election victory. I searched for a post from my blogging friend, Ray Hanania, a Palestinian-American comedian and news columnist. He always has interesting things to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But I couldn't find an election post so I e-mailed him asking if he'd written on the subject. He wrote me today that he'd published a column in Newsday, Vote Driven by Emotion, Not Reason. Ray Hanania, Palestinian-American commentator Ray is the first Arab blogger who's expressed outright opposition to Hamas' victory. It's interesting to note that a good deal of his hostility derives ...

DR, one of my trusty readers has pointed me to this interesting confession by Aussie Dave that he's a bit peeved at bloggers who are distorting his purposes in creating the JIB Awards. Jesus' General of course comes in for his share of opprobrium because he has the effrontery to suggest that his readers vote for the few progressive blogs among the nominees: there are bloggers who have seen it necessary to either disparage other competing blogs, or send their readers to skew the results by voting for selected blogs that conform to their ideology. Which is of course laughable because the JIB Awards as a whole are largely a competition that conforms to Aussie Dave's ideology. ...

The NY Times quotes this interesting and perceptive comment from a Palestinian political scientist about what the future might hold for both Hamas and Fatah: Hisham Ahmed, a political scientist at Birzeit University who has written books about Hamas, called the vote "an historic moment in every sense," but he emphasized that "these results don't reflect the real size of Fatah and Hamas in the society," because they are distorted by anger at Fatah, preoccupation with internal issues and a complicated voting system. If Mr. Abbas and the world handle the situation intelligently, Mr. Ahmed said, "it could mark the beginning of the end of Hamas as an ideologically pure force and a beginning of a reformed Fatah." But ...

Yesterday, I wrote my own analysis of Hamas' stunning victory in yesterday's Palestinian legislative elections. Tonight, I was listening to Open Source Media's coverage of the elections, Hamas 2.0, which featured Gazan blogger Laila El-Haddad, author of Raising Yousuf: Diary of a Mother Under Occupation. It made me hit my head and realize I'd enjoyed hearing the sound of my own voice talking about the elections, but what about listening to the Palestinian bloggers (and Arabs blogging about Palestine), who are much more deeply and personally affected by this milestone? It is all too easy in this insular world we live in to think that what we have to say is far more important that ...

A Muslim who Homeland Security says is "mad, bad, and dangerous to know." (photo: Graham Morrison) Noted European Islamic scholar, Tariq Ramadan, has been persona non grata in this country since 2004, when the Department of Homeland Security cancelled a visa it had issued allowing him to teach at Notre Dame. DHS never gave any specific reason for the cancellation other than this vague explanation reported by the NY Times: Speaking to reporters in August 2004, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, Russ Knocke, cited the Patriot Act clause as the reason that Mr. Ramadan's visa was canceled. The clause, adopted when the act was passed ...