Comments on: What’s Haaretz’s Rosner Have Against Obama?

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 07:23:03 +0000

I studied Hebrew in Hebrew school from the age of 9. But I never really learned the language proficiently till I went to Israel. Immersion helps immensely. But I guess general familiarity with the vowel-less Torah text does help somewhat in reading modern Hebrew.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:25:11 +0000

I dare say space is a consideration, though up until a couple of years ago the canadian arab anti discrimination league ran a web page of translations from the hebrew press - including haaretz - that were more bizarre than anything normally seen in english.

The language can only be read in its modern vowel-less form if you already know basic hebrew from the bible and the prayer-book, though, you might as well admit it!

For me, having done two terms with a written textbook, and being quite able to carry on through it by myself, the pronunciation was going to be the biggest problem, and that is where this US State Dept audio course is such a boon. I don’t think many people know of it, but it is actually available free on-line:
http://fsi-language-courses.com/default.aspx

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:05:15 +0000

I taught myself Israeli contemporary Hebrew in part by reading Haaretz in Hebrew every day while I was a student at the Hebrew U. I think the Hebrew version gives you a more nuanced & fuller picture of what’s going on. The English online version is severely truncated because they simply don’t have as much space (or ability to translate) as in the print editions.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:52:53 +0000

I find it a bit ironic that this ‘line-by-line military censorship’ I claim to have detected in Haaretz is only visible THERE, because only THERE are there journalists who make frequent attempts to circumvent it. Other papers (like the JPost) don’t NEED ‘line-by-line military censorship’ because they really have internalised the security state’s defensive values.

Anyway, I am learning Hebrew, without the help of any real-world Jewish teachers, using an audio package designed for the families of US diplomats. I do not expect to find the Hebrew-language press markedly more frank and honest than the English-language press, but I do think that a sensitivity to Hebrew nuance may help me to ‘read between the lines’ more often.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:56:36 +0000

Rowan: The Azmi Bishara affair made me realize just how powerful Israeli military censorship was & just how tepid was Israeli journalism’s response to it. They’re essentially powerless to buck it unlike journalism here where you at least have strong First Amendment protections which the courts tend to respect if a case is taken to them.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:05:26 +0000

as if in reply to the above theory, that (e.g.) haaretz is full of military censors playing the role of sub-editors, here is a very interesting article by an insider from israeli journalism saying that they don’t need any such external censors, they censor themselves:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n05/print/mend01_.html

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:42:25 +0000

I have always been struck by the fact that the ‘proper journalists’ at Haaretz carefully avoid mentioning the fact that Mr Rosner has been parachuted on top of them, with his brightly coloured canopy prominently featured on every web page. I personally believe that those who claim the Israeli press (and by this they invariably mean, Haaretz) to be freer than the Anglo-American press fail to realise that all stories with military content are censored line by line as a routine measure by what could be described as ‘embedded military sub-editors’. Of course, this theory is unprovable because the ‘proper journalists’ cannot speak of it - being, as I said, censored …

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:48:44 +0000

You’ve added some new claims into the mix which even the Obama haters haven’t introduced: Catholic? Where did that come from?

If Obama is spiritually confused then I’d guess that many if not most Americans go through very similar types of spiritual confusion. Spiritual searching is something to be commended & not condemned. It shows your small mindedness & not his.

No one here is ever taken seriously for spouting charges w. no evidence as you do (about alleged corruption).

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:12:32 +0000

Obama is lighter than Oprah, just a little more corrupt than her.
Dump him!
Just analyze his confused life: atheist, Muslim, Catholic, agnostic, Baptist.
I would like, he remained atheist.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:34:05 +0000

Ah, I see we have an admirer of the National Review among us. Aren’t you in the wrong part of the blogosphere? Shouldn’t you me cuddling with Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter instead of slumming over here?