Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Archive for February, 2006

California Judge Rules Steve Jobs Can’t Tear Down Historic Jackling House

Tuesday, February 28th, 2006

Jackling HouseDaniel Jackling House, Woodside, CA. (photo: Woodside History Committee)

On January 27th, California Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner rendered a final judgment against Steve Jobs in his bid to demolish the historic Jackling House. Uphold Our Heritage, a group I’ve supported even before its formal inception, led the battle to preserve the home when the Town of Woodside essentially capitulated to Jobs’ demand that the house must go.

Daniel JacklingDaniel Jackling, founder of Utah Copper Company (photo: NN.Railfan.net)

The house was built by Daniel Jackling, a western mining magnate who revolutionized the copper industry at the turn of the century. He built his palace in 1923. I’m certain he was as entrepreneurial in his day as Jobs’ is in ours. It was designed by renowned California architect George Washington Smith (who was responsible for Santa Barbara’s “Spanish hacienda” style). For further background, see my earlier post about the campaign to save Jackling. The Uphold Our Heritage site also contains valuable information about the home’s history and the architect’s legacy.

Bloomberg News published its own story about the case yesterday, Apple’s Jobs Fights Preservationists Who Want to Save His House. Apparently, CNN ran a story which made a bollocks out of the entire case saying that Jobs was fighting with the Town of Woodside which was attempting to prevent him from demolishing the home (it isn’t, but Uphold Our Heritage IS). The reporter accepted at face value Jobs’ contention that the house is a “monstrosity.” I’ve tried to find this story on their website without success. Apparently, they thought better of profiling it online.

Last December, when Weiner filed her preliminary decision I wrote Steve Jobs Loses Fight to Demolish Historic Landmark. Now that the decision is final I’m delighted. Of course, Jobs attorney has publicly stated that his client will appeal the ruling to the State Supreme Court. This will land Jobs in the same spotlight as David Geffen, another celebrity who took land use decisions into his own hands–and lost. In Geffen’s case, he defied the State’s right to permit public access to his beachfront property in order for individuals to get to the Malibu beach. I’m glad that the Supreme Court doesn’t take it lightly when celebrities ride roughshod over State law when it comes to uses of their property.

Here is a portion of Weiner’s decision:

The administrative record reflects a severe lack of evidence supporting…findings that the EIR alternatives are “economically unjustifiable” or economically infeasible [this refers to Jobs' claim that relocating the home was economically unjustified].

…Their [the Town of Woodside's] finding of economic infeasiblity is not supported by substantial evidence, and was arbitrary and capricious. This was an abuse of discretion.

What the Town…approved is the utter antithesis of its existing General Plan. The theme of the General Plan is one of conservation, preservation, and certainly maintenance of existing structures. It is arbitrary and capricious for the Town of Woodside to imply or interpolate the provisions of the General Plan contrary to its express components.

Such findings simply demonstrate the Town Council’s exaggerated efforts to find a means to the end that Jobs seeks.

In regard to the “conditions” placed upon the demolition permit [that Jobs take a year to find someone willing to move the house off-site] , there has been no showing that these conditions are actually enforceable [i.e. if there were a buyer willing to relocate the house, Jobs would be under no obligation to turn the house over to him/her]. Jobs is the sole decision maker in determining whether or not to accept any proposals for relocation.

Woodside made a finding that the EIR alternative to have the house relocated to another site was not feasible, yet it required that efforts be made to see if the house could be relocated to another site to a willing taker. This demonstrates the absurdity of the “findings” of infeasibility made by Woodside.

Accordingly the finding of overriding consideration was not supported by substantial evidence, and the granting of the demolition permit by Woodside to Jobs was an abuse of discretion.

Congratulations to Clotilde Luce and Uphold Our Heritage for waging a brilliant campaign with the help of Chatten-Brown Carstens, a law firm specializing in cases involving the California Environmental Quality Act. This is a huge victory for historic preservation. It should be a lesson for cities (like mine here in Seattle) which have essentially no regulations intended to preserve existing housing stock (and especially historic homes). Preserve it or lose it!

UOH’s defense of Jobs’ appeal will cost at least $35,000. UOH has confidence it has a strong case on appeal. If you admire historic architecture, if you’ve ever visited Santa Barbara and loved it, if you believe in preserving our artistic heritage, and if you just want to make sure Goliath doesn’t get to run roughshod over the Davids of this world, please consider making a contribution to support the legal defense of Jackling House via the group’s Paypal account.

Tax-deductible donations may also be made through:

National Trust for Historic Preservation
Western Office
8 California Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94111-4828

Please note “for Jackling House” on the check.

European Union Busts Through Israeli Financial Siege of Palestinian Authority

Tuesday, February 28th, 2006

Israel, with the tacit backing of the U.S. has been tightening the noose around the Palestinian economy using the pretext of Hamas’ upcoming assumption of control of the Palestinian Authority. All I can say is thank God there are alternative international forces which aren’t bound by Israel and the U.S.’ draconian notions.

The NY Times notes that the EU has responded positively to James Wolfensohn’s urgent request (on behalf of the Quartet) for emergency funding to prevent the PA from imminent collapse:

After receiving a dire warning that the Palestinian Authority was so short of money that it might collapse in two weeks, the European Union on Monday offered $144 million in aid to the Palestinians before a Hamas government takes power.

The Europeans acted in partial response to a letter from James D. Wolfensohn, the special Middle East envoy of the so-called Quartet made up of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.

Mr. Wolfensohn warned in a letter dated Saturday that “unless a solution is found, we may be facing the financial collapse of the P.A. within two weeks,” referring to the Palestinian Authority. The money from the European Union will not solve the Palestinian money crunch for very long, especially since most of it is not in cash, but it will ease the burden of repayments to suppliers.

And other nations have stepped up to the plate too:

…The Saudis have promised but not yet delivered $20 million for February, the Norwegians have promised another $10 million and Qatar has delivered $14 million, which has already gone to repay loans taken in January in anticipation of the donation.

Wolfensohn also notes the need to address the Palestinians’ long-term financing requirements so they will not have to beg each month for the funds to get them through the next month:

“If we do not want to see rising tension leading to violence and chaos,” Mr. Wolfensohn wrote, “we will have to develop urgently a convincing strategy addressing the P.A.’s financial and developmental needs not only in the short-term of the next few weeks but also in a longer time frame.” That includes the revenues withheld by Israel, he said, adding, “It cannot be in Israel’s interests to have a sharp deterioration of the economic and humanitarian situation next door.”

You’d think the sentiment in the last sentence of that paragraph would be self-evident to the Israelis. But they’ve never been ones to think in the broader or long-term context about the problems of their region. And as far as they’re concerned they live alone with no neighbors to speak of. At least, that’s they way they’d prefer it. But reality has a way of jumping and biting you in the ass when you try to maintain such a segregated existence.

The funding we’re speaking of is short-term financing which will only get the Palestinians through the coming weeks. Then it’s back to the drawing board. U.S. and Israeli policy only ensure that the Palestinians will continue to move from one crisis to the next. You might almost get the impression that both nations (though especially Israel) prefer it that way.

Wal-Mart: Feeling the Heat on Health Care

Tuesday, February 28th, 2006

Wal-Mart’s CEO, H. Lee Scott, made a pitch to the nation’s governors yesterday to ease up their campaign to force the company to provide health care to more employees. The reason the governors are concerned is that every Wal-Mart employee who either doesn’t qualify for the company’s health care plan or can’t afford to pay for it is potentially another applicant for Medicaid and other state-financed health programs. The governors are getting wise to this corporate shell game and putting the screws on the company. That’s the only reason that the company recently announced it was “sweetening” its health plan to cover more workers and shortening the period of time before an employee could begin to use the benefit.

anti-Walmart cartoon (cartoon: Mike Konopacki)

That’s also the reason that the company, run largely by white executives but frequented by minority customers and staffed also by minorities, just hired Andrew Young to lobby on its behalf. The cynical strategy: let’s hire that Black man to show that we care about our wage-slave minority employees. And here is what the former UN ambassador and civil rights icon had the gall to say on his new client’s behalf:

”They are some of the best entry level jobs that are available to poor people. And they also make products available to the working poor.”

He neglects to complete the thought: “they are some of the best jobs available for poor people AND they’ll sure stay poor as long as they remain in them.”

Here’s the NY Times account of Scott’s speech:

The executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., said that state bills aimed at improving Wal-Mart’s benefits “may score short-term political points, but they won’t solve America’s health care challenges.”

Mr. Scott said that Wal-Mart’s health plans were “not perfect” but that the company was committed to improving the health care system by expanding its benefits and by opening low-cost medical clinics for workers and the public in its stores.

Trying to broaden a debate over employer health care plans that has focused heavily on Wal-Mart, Mr. Scott said: “At the end of the day, this is not about me. It is not about Wal-Mart. And it is not about you. It is about all of us and what we can do to keep this country great.”

He claims the state bills “won’t solve America’s health care challenges” as if that was the responsibility of these governors. No, their only responsibility is to solve their states’ health care challenges. And Wal-Mart’s working poor employees (average salary–$20,000) ARE a burden on state budgets. Which means that the state bills are precisely appropriate ways to address the problem caused by Wal-Mart’s benefit-poor working environment.

And don’t you just love that last paragraph in which Scott begs for “understanding.” It’s not about me. It’s not about Wal-Mart. It’s about what we can do to make this country great. Who does he think he’s talking to? FoxNews? I hope no governors were fooled by this trash-talk. If Scott or his company gave a damn they’d make a small corporate contribution to making this country great by enabling their employees to maintain their health.

My advice is cut the crap, boss. Do right by your employees and give them honorable health benefits so they can take care of themselves and their children.

In case, we entertained any notion of Scott’s sincerity on these matters, listen to how he slyly criticizes state health plans for being TOO GENEROUS to the working poor:

Mr. Scott, referring to Wal-Mart workers on Medicaid, said: “Do we want more of our associates’ kids on our health plans? Of course we do.”

But Mr. Scott hinted at another reason so many of his workers were on Medicaid. “Have many states made Medicaid programs far more generous in order to cover the kids of working families? Yes, they have.”

So, he’s saying that if your states would stop providing coverage for children, then his employees wouldn’t be a burden on the state; AND he wouldn’t have to come up with improved health benefits for his own employees. Do I hear the word “cynical” anyone? It reminds me of Jonathan Swift’s remarkable satire, A Modest Proposal, in which he suggests that one way to ease the Irish famine would be to eat Irish babies thus easing the burden on both the starving poor and Ireland’s English rulers. All I can say is eat your heart our Mr. Scott, that is, if you actually have one.

I’m pleased to know that my own governor wasn’t buying any of Scott’s crap:

Christine Gregoire, the Democratic governor of Washington, said that 20 percent of Wal-Mart workers in her state received public health care assistance. After Mr. Scott’s speech, she said that this was “a problem that he has to solve.”

Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoon Contest

Monday, February 27th, 2006

israeli anti-semitic cartoon contest logo
An Iranian newspaper devised a Holocaust cartoon contest in vengeful response to the Muhammed cartoon fiasco. In reply, an Israeli cartoonist, Amitai Sandy, has devised what he shockingly calls the Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoon Contest (IASCC). He put out a call to Jewish cartoonists around the world for submissions and has published (see the cartoons) around ten so far (the competition ends March 5th). All cartoons here are provided courtesy of Amitai Shandy. I know that when you first read this headline you had the same chilled response that I did. You said something like: “there isn’t enough of this shit in the world that a fellow Jew has to be the conduit for more of it?”

Settler Gothic spoof on American Gothic‘Settler Gothic:’ spoof of Grant Wood’s American Gothic (cartoon: Avi Katz)

Yaakov Kirschen, author of the Dry Bones comic strip, probably had something like this response. His blog was where I first learned about it. He links to this Haaretz story about it which quotes Sandy saying mockingly (please understand that this statement is meant ironically):

“We’ll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published!” said Sandy “No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!”

Punch and Judy--Pinchas and Jamila‘Pinchas & Jamila’ spoof on ‘Punch & Judy’ in which a settler beats a Palestinian woman with a peace activist and Israeli soldier looking on impassively (cartoon: Avi Katz)

But after actually visiting the IASCC website and viewing the cartoons for myself, I had quite a different response. Why? Well, first of all I must admit that there ARE a few genuinely disgusting cartoons. But even more importantly there are some genuinely funny ones that make interesting and valid points. Not reinforcing anti-Semitic stereotypes, but rather poking fun at those very stereotypes. In short, I think this competition was everything that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were meant to be but were not. The latter were not funny (a cardinal sin for cartooning). They were gratuitously insulting and with little redeeming social commentary. They did not challenge accepted norms or values in any sort of constructive ways.

I’m running a few of the cartoons which I thought the most interesting. I’m not running the few cartoons which seemed revolting and insipid (there were a few). I’m gonna let you decide what you think.

Join the Elders of Zion(cartoon: Mike Eighpe)

Terry Gross on Fresh Air interviews Sandy and gets closest to conveying both the nuttiness, irony, and provocative nature of the contest:

“I’m trying to decide whether this contest is incredibly smart and funny and a really great way of proving the point that you want to make or whether it’s really kind of sick.”

To which Sandy replies: “It’s a little bit of both.”

The problem with all this is that most Jews are understandably uncomfortable with anything that remotely smacks of anti-Semitism. Our vaunted sense of humor (remember Lenny Bruce?) takes leave when it comes to this subject. But Sandy is saying: “why should it?” Why can’t we talk about it like we talk about any other subject that is important to us? Why can’t we poke fun at the anti-Semites using their own graphic weapons (big noses, horns, the works)? And most of all, why can’t we poke fun at ourselves as Jews have done for millenia? Let’s not forget that such dangerous and subversive humor was an integral part of Lenny Bruce’s comic arsenal. Witness this great joke of his:

papal payoff cartoon(cartoon: Neta Ram)

We killed Jesus Christ. That’s right, we did. And we’re proud of it, too. His parents wanted him to become a doctor and he refused. So we killed the f*$%@r.

Finally, Sandy mentions in his Fresh Air interview that during an Israeli peace demonstration against the Separation Wall right-wing counter-demonstrators shouted: “You fuck Arabs.” I personally can vouch for such disgusting behavior because when I demonstrated in Jerusalem in 1973 for Israeli negotiations with the PLO right-wing hooligans threw rocks at us and one hit me square on the chin. The only time I’ve ever encountered violence at a demonstration.
spoof on israeli right-wing propaganda
So Sandy’s response was to create this poster which takes the right-wing taunt at face value and makes a virtue of the insult.

Tzipi Livni: Abbas ‘No Longer Relevant’

Monday, February 27th, 2006


According to the NY Times, Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, has upped the ante in the Israeli standoff with the new Hamas government by declaring Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas persona non grata:

Tzipi LivniTzipi Livni: no Palestinian leader pliant enough for her taste (photo: Oded Balilty/Associated Press)

Israel’s foreign minister said Sunday that Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, was “no longer relevant” in a Palestinian government that will soon be led by the militant Islamic group Hamas.

The remarks by the foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, are consistent with the tough stance Israel has adopted as Hamas prepares to take power, but her view is at odds with the efforts by the United States and the European Union to work with Mr. Abbas and to bolster him.

On Saturday, an American envoy, David Welch, met with Mr. Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah and expressed support for his leadership.

I find it interesting that Israel usually, at least on its face, attempts to be in step with U.S. policy toward the Palestinians. And stated U.S. policy is that Mahmoud Abbas is a valuable and strategic partner for peace. This makes Livni’s comments a real slap in the face to Condi Rice who firmly believes in Abbas because…well, because there isn’t much other choice is there? If you can’t deal with Abbas, who will you deal with? No one? Is no one a viable choice? I guess for Livni and prime minister Ehud Olmert it appears to be.

Their strategy seems to involve reverting back to Sharon’s unilateral approach to Israeli-Palestinian relations. This means that Olmert will announce withdrawals from selected West Bank settlements and then declare those Israel’s “final position.” In essence, he’ll be saying that this will fix Israel’s international border; thus presenting Hamas and any other international entity that objects with a fait accompli. Like a mafia don, he will dare them by saying: “Whadaya gonna do about it?”

Such unilaterism does not require that he interact with Palestinians or their elected government at all. The separation between Israel and Palestine will continue and become further institutionalized in Israeli political and social life. All of which is beyond sad. It’s tragic. And some day this will change. This attitude will be overthrown. It has to be. Human life and society does not allow for walls. Humans want to interact with each other. They need intercourse. They need contact. My fear is that the longer this benighted policy reigns supreme the harder it will become to undo its pernicious impact when the era of peace does come. Only then will we be able to count the toll in suffering and hardship (for both sides) that this frigid policy has caused.

Dubai Ports Deal and Surrendering to Terror Paranoia

Sunday, February 26th, 2006

I’ve read some wacky conspiracy theories suggested by “progressive” opponents of the Dubai ports deal, but I think what I read at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Stakeholder blog last night takes the cake. The post titled Oy, linked to a New York Post (that’s Rupert Murdoch’s shmatte) story, QAEDA CLAIM: WE ‘INFILTRATED’ UAE GOV’T (registration required). The Stakeholder post thanked the Left Coaster for alerting it to the story.

Osama bin Laden-Dubai ports cartoonU.S.: Surrendering to terror and paranoia (cartoon: Gary Markstein/Cagle.com)

The first thing that struck me about this was that two erstwhile progressive websites were leaning on a Murdoch rag to support their opposition to the ports deal. Have we no shame?? I expect Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs to link to nasty unsourced anti-Arab stories from the British tabloid press. But I don’t expect the same from my colleagues in the progressive blog world. Would you rely on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity as a source for one of your posts unless you meant to ridicule them? I know I wouldn’t.

But even worse is the actual “substance” of the story:

February 25, 2006 — WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it “infiltrated” key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.

The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of “mujahedeen detainees,” who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

So get this straight, this “disturbing” and “explosive” story is based on a purported message that Al Qaeda sent to UAE rulers. Al Qaeda was pressuring the government to release the former’s prisoners and in order to gain more leverage it claimed it had operatives in place within agencies who could do great harm to UAE. Why in heavens name would anyone trust the truth of the Qaeda message?? Did they provide any proof of their alleged infiltration? Rather than trusting the authenticity of the message, it’s far more likely that Qaeda was blowing smoke up UAE’s ass attempting to spook them into releasing the Qaeda detainees.

The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port deal, who fear the Dubai-based firm could be used by terrorists to sneak money and personnel into the United States.

And indeed it has, though the Post could never have imagined that gullible so-called lefties would be the ones to use such ammunition.

Little is known about the origins or authorship of the message.

That’s the only fully accurate statement in this entire story. And in case anyone wondered about the “journalistic standards” of the Post, they need look no farther than here. The Post quotes the alleged contents of the message here:

“You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship and monetary agencies, along with other agencies that should not be mentioned,” the message said.

“Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing . . . policies which do not serve your interest and will only cost you many problems that will place you in an embarrassing state before your citizens.

“Your homeland is exposed to us. There are many vital interests that will hurt you if we decided to harm them.”

As a suspect under interrogation would say on a TV cop show: “is that all ya got?”

The document was among a batch of internal al Qaeda communications captured by U.S. forces in the war on terror.

They were declassified and released earlier this month by the Center for Combating Terrorism at West Point.

A word on the Combatting Terrorism Center. It is an anti-terror military institute affiliated with the U.S. Military Academy and directed by Gen. Wayne Downing. Downing was the general who resigned in 2002 (before the Iraq war) from his White House job as assistant to the president for combating terror when Don Rumsfeld rejected his plan to topple Saddam Hussein relying on air power and heavy special forces operations.

Downing is likely quite disaffected from Bush Mideast policy and so would have a vested interest in releasing documents which shed negative light on the Dubai ports deal. So until someone can prove otherwise, the source of the alleged document and its distributor is suspect.

“If it’s real, the document shows that the UAE really is trying to cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terrorism, because they were being threatened by al Qaeda,” said terrorism expert Lorenzo Vidino.

“But it also reveals that even though they [the UAE] are our friends, al Qaeda seems to have people on the inside in the UAE, just as it has in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and Kuwait.”

“If it’s real.” That’s the $64,000 question. If I had that much money I’d bet against it. And if it is “real,” why does it prove “Qaeda seems to have people on the inside?” It merely proves that Qaeda SAID it has people on the inside. How much credence do you give to statements from Al Qaeda?? Right. I don’t either. And who is Lorenzo Vidino and why should anyone put any trust in him?

So what we have here is garbage. But garbage spewed by the far-right press and embraced avidly by Democrats and progressives desperate to lay a glove on Bush. Besides desperation, this dance with nativism indicates the abject failure of the progressive movement to shed a mortal blow on the Bush presidency. We’re so damn frustrated at this failure that it seems that some of us have relaxed our usual standards in order to grasp this frail reed of a controversy.

Finally, to me the ports deal and “evidence” such the purported Al Qaeda message show that Americans suffer from the same paranoia about Al Qaeda which it was attempting to instill in the UAE when it wrote this message. If we believe that Al Qaeda “owns” UAE, then certainly AQ will only be a footstep from our door when Dubai Ports World takes over the U.S. port terminals. Then it’s only a question of time before AQ hurts us badly and DPW will be the conduit for such terror.

This hyperactive, paranoid fantasy only shows that Al Qaeda has taken over our psyches. When you let it do so you are doing the bidding of both Al Qaeda AND George Bush, who after 9/11 did his best to create a national security state in which there is no other priority but fighting terror. Terror dominates us–our minds and our souls. How sad. Neither Al Qaeda, nor terror, nor fear owns me. I wish I could say the same about some of my progressive blog colleagues.

AIPAC Spying Trial to Begin in April

Sunday, February 26th, 2006

I just wrote a post about AIPAC’s big annual bash, better known as the AIPAC Policy Conference, that begins March 5th in D.C. They’ll bring 5-6,000 of their biggest fat-cat boosters to D.C. to hobnob with fawning members of Congress eager for campaign largess. The prime rib of red meat for this conference will be AIPAC’s proposed Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (H.R. 4681), which will draw the noose ever tighter around Palestinian necks in a vain effort to destroy Hamas and the PA. Speaking of red meat, Dick Cheney will be the “Special Guest” for the Closing Session.

Steve RosenSteve Rosen, fired number 2 AIPAC staffer (photo: Jewish Week)

One of my deep background confidants who’s been known to frequent some of the same haunts as aforesaid AIPACniks points me to an even more important calendar date. Sometime in late April, the trial of Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen will begin. They’re the fellows accused of inducing Pentagon analyst, Larry Franklin to provide secret U.S. intelligence about Iran to an Israeli embassy officer. In other words, they’re spies (oops, ‘alleged’ spies). If not spies, then they were aiding and abetting.

AIPAC wants you to forget all about its connection to this heinous incident. That’s why it wants the Policy Conference to be as big a barnstormer as can be–in order to inoculate themselves from the toxin of the trial. But, as the Forward notes, it may not work:

Defense attorneys will try to establish that the men were following the organization’s routine practice and that Aipac’s top officials were fully aware of their actions. “The evidence in this case will show that Dr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman always acted in Aipac’s interests, never were on their own and acted with the knowledge and approval of their superiors,” Rosen’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, told the Forward.

…Defense attorneys are expected to argue that receiving information from administration officials was something the two were paid and encouraged to do, and something Aipac routinely does — as do many other lobbying groups in Washington.

“It is very possible” that attorneys for Rosen and Weissman will call senior Aipac officials to testify in court, sources familiar with the case told the Forward. Such testimony would undoubtedly be embarrassing to Aipac, according to several sources familiar with the case.

…The defense’s intention to bring Aipac into the courtroom — both physically and figuratively — is causing concern and resentment within the organization, sources close to Aipac said.

As far as AIPAC’s concerned, Rosen and Weissman were rogue staffers with a personal mission to assist Israeli intelligence. AIPAC didn’t put them up to it. AIPAC doesn’t endorse what they did. AIPAC fired them when it found out. Blah, blah, blah.

My confidant says “don’t you believe it.” S/He tells me that (at least in his informed opinion) the government’s “got the goods” both on the staffers and AIPAC. S/He’s hoping for a “hanging judge and jury.” Can’t say as I blame him/her.

This Jewish Week article raises serious doubts about how much separation AIPAC really has from Rosen. JTA published this February 2nd piece about the federal judge, T.S. Ellis III, who quadrupled Larry Franklin’s recommended sentence from four to twelve years. Apparently, Ellis has warned Rosen, Weissman and any other civilians to whom they may’ve passed information that they may be as culpable as Franklin even though they are civilians (not government employees).

Be prepared too for a full frontal attack on Paul McNulty, the federal prosecutor trying the case. Just a matter of time before we hear Malcolm Hoenlein and his ilk accusing him of anti-Semitism and attempting to damage the reputation of the entire Jewish community in the eyes of the word, etc.

Justin Raimondo attempts to place this spying scandal in the context of what he sees as AIPAC (and hence, Israeli) infiltration of the higest level of the Pentagon in the persons of Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and others connected with AIPAC’s think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Read my past posts about AIPAC and the spying scandal.

‘The Closing of the American Mind:’ Denying Visas to Foreign Intellectuals

Saturday, February 25th, 2006

I’d like to turn Allan Bloom’s neoconservative rant against multi-culturalism, The Closing of the American Mind, on its head in this post about the Bush Administration’s war on foreign intellectuals who wish to teach or speak at American universities.

Many of us know about Tariq Ramadan’s horror story in being denied a visa to teach at Notre Dame University. He and the ACLU are suing the Department of Homeland Security over that one. But recent news stories note that DHS and the State Department are waging a worldwide campaign to rid this country’s campuses of foreign intellectuals who may expose our tender young minds to ideas too dangerous for them to absorb. Not to mention those foreign scientists who may be coming here to “steal” our secrets in order to foment terror against us (see below).

The Chronicle of Higher Education (paid subscription required or read it here) reports that an indigenous Bolivian professor has been denied a visa to teach at the University of Nebraska:

Waskar AriWaskar Ari, Aymaran professor refused U.S. visa (photo: Aymaranet.org)

Waskar T. Ari, a member of Bolivia’s largest indigenous group, earned a Ph.D. in history from Georgetown University in 2005 and was hired by Nebraska as an assistant professor of history and ethnic studies. His job was to have begun last August.

Barbara S. Weinstein, a history professor at the University of Maryland at College Park, called the situation “very disturbing.” Ms. Weinstein is president-elect of the American Historical Association, which has spoken out in behalf of Mr. Ari.

The government’s reason for not issuing the visa, she speculated, seems related to his ethnicity. “He has certainly never been a member of any movement that would be of a security concern to the U.S. government,” she said.

Mr. Ari, a member of the Aymara people of Bolivia, is a scholar of the religious beliefs and political activism among indigenous Bolivians. He has served as a consultant on social and economic issues facing the Aymara with the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and other organizations.

The circumstances under which the U.S. denied his visa are murky at best:

Last June, shortly after it hired Mr. Ari, the University of Nebraska paid $1,000 for an expedited application to the U.S. immigration service to have him declared eligible to apply for a visa for a professional job in the United States. Today, eight months later, the service’s Web site shows the application as “pending.”

The university says it has not received any explanation from the immigration service, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

But it appears that the government has classified Mr. Ari as a threat to American security. Mr. Ari had been living in the Washington area when he was hired by Nebraska, and returned home to Bolivia for what he expected would be a short stay to settle his affairs and pick up a new visa. But when he visited the U.S. Consulate last summer in the Bolivian capital, La Paz, U.S. officials took his passport and stamped “canceled” over his student visa, which was about to expire anyway.

Asked about the situation, a spokeswoman at the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs checked Mr. Ari’s file and said the cancellation of his old visa was done under a terrorism-related section of U.S. legislation on the granting of visas. “We have derogatory information that renders him ineligible,” she said, but declined to add any further information.

This incident illustrates perfectly the distortion introduced into U.S. intellectual life by 9/11 and the terror obsession that prevailed. Terror trumps all–it trumps thought, ideas, knowledge. Even worse, raising the terror specter renders any dissent useless. And the government doesn’t even have to provide a reason for turning foreign academics away. Is this democracy? Is this freedom? Is this what this nation really stands for? What are we afraid of? That an Aymara professor will introduce the “poisonous” ideas of Evo Morales to young college students and bring the spirit of the ‘coca revolution’ here?

I’m embarrassed to say that an Aymara Indian has more faith in my country than I do:

Mr. Ari is one of very few members of the Aymara to have attained a Ph.D.

…Mr. Ari said that he considers the United States like his second “fatherland,” adding that “many indigenous people think I’m too pro-American.”

“It must be some big mistake,” he said of his situation, adding, “I believe in justice. The truth will win out.”

I only hope it is so. But given the closeted minds of this Administration I’m afraid he may be waiting for justice a long time. I hope the ACLU is listening and will take this case on as well as Ramadan’s.

Goverdhan MehtaGoverdhan Mehta, chemist as terrorist? (photo: Orgchem.iisc.ernet.in)

And for the final academic visa outrage of the day, we have the Washington Post to thank. It reported that An Indian academic chemist, Goverdhan Mehta, who is the president of the International Council for Science, was denied a visa by the U.S. consulate in Madras because officials viewed his research as somehow tied to chemical warfare:

The consulate told Mehta “you have been denied a visa” and invited him to submit additional information, according to an official at the National Academy of Sciences who saw a copy of the document. Mehta said in a written account obtained by The Washington Post…hat he was humiliated, accused of “hiding things” and being dishonest, and told that his work is dangerous because of its potential applications in chemical warfare.

Mehta denied that his work has anything to do with weapons…

The scientist told Indian newspapers that his dealing with the U.S. consulate was “the most degrading experience of my life.”

…Mehta’s case has especially angered Indians because he was a director of the Indian Institute of Science and is a science adviser to India’s prime minister. He has visited the United States “dozens of times,” he said, and the University of Florida in Gainesville had invited him to lecture at an international conference.

In his written account, the scientist said that after traveling 200 miles, waiting three hours with his wife for an interview and being accused of deception, he was outraged when his accounts of his research were questioned and he was told he needed to fill out a detailed questionnaire.

“I indicated that I have no desire to subject myself to any further humiliation and asked that our passports be returned forthwith,” he wrote. The consular official, Mehta added, “stamped the passports to indicate visa refusal and returned them.”

What makes this outrage all the more embarrassing for Bush is that he’s scheduled to visit India in a few days. This will, I’m sure sit well with his Indian hosts. How do you plan to visit one of the world’s most important nations and yet manage to insult some of its most well-connected and distinguished scientists? It boggles the mind. But we should keep in mind that if they do this to the cream of the intellectual crop imagine what they do to the average Indian. This all sends a terrific message to Indians about our openness to them and their ideas. What a way to make friends and influence people.

The State Department spokesperson Adam Ereli’s statement of regret is amusing:

“We try to treat everybody fairly. We certainly think we did so in this case, frankly. And we look forward to him having a good trip to the United States. Because the United States wants to be open and welcoming to all those who wish to come here and we’ve made every effort in this case to be open, to be welcoming and to deal with Professor Mehta in a respectful and cordial way.”

When you consider this statement by the ‘victim:’

Mehta said that he had already canceled his travel plans and declined a visiting professorship at the University of Florida in Gainesville. He said the issuance of a visa will not change his decision.

The NY Times version of the story further notes:

Dr. Mehta said he had visited the United States about 20 times but would never again apply for an American visa.

Perhaps Adam Ereli should’ve sung instead “we’ll be missing you in all the old familar places.”

The NY Times notes that two other distinguished Indian academics have also been denied visas from the same U.S. consulate:

…Placid Rodriguez, said he was called by the consulate on Feb. 16. A nuclear metallurgist who helped develop India’s fast-breeder reactor in the 1990’s, he had sought a visa in November to speak at a minerals and metals conference starting March 12 in San Antonio. He said he was told [on Feb. 16] it would take about eight weeks to review his answers to a new questionnaire.

…Dr. Rodriguez said that when he was told that, he saw no point in completing the questionnaire because he would have missed the conference. Besides, he wondered aloud, why hadn’t consular officials asked for the questionnaire in November?

The final case, reported Thursday by an English-language daily, The Indian Express, involved a biologist, P. C. Kesavan, who said he had been told his visa application would be delayed. A scientist affiliated with the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Dr. Kesavan told the newspaper he had been asked for his “entire biographical sketch” by the consulate in Chennai. The paper quoted him as calling it a “most demeaning and humiliating experience.”