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

I opened the front page of yesterday’s N.Y. Times Magazine and was greeted by a two page spread promoting Israeli tourism and the 60th anniversary celebration. It was a bit of a shocker. Here’s the copy:

You’ll love Israel from the first “Shalom.” Who can say “Shalom” more eloquently than Maya Weiser? She found her first love–dance–when she was six. She became a member of the Bat Sheva Dance Company, performing in the beautiful Susanne Lelall Center in Tel Aviv, and at New York’s Lincoln Center. Recently she found a second love–saving the animals–so she is studying animal science at Hebrew University. Her next love? A considerable number of young men have their hopes up. Meanwhile, she dances and lives with her cat in the same Tel Aviv apartment where her father grew up.

Israel. We hope to see you soon. Shalom!

I’m no expert on NY Times ad rates but I figure this had to cost them at least $250,000. Here’s background on the campaign:

Israel`s Ministry of Tourism has launched a multi-million dollar advertising campaign in North America, designed to boost tourism to Israel from the United States and Canada. The budget for the campaign is an unprecedented $11 million…

“Our goal,” explains Sommer, “is to deflect the constant barrage of negative news images of Israel, and to show the country as it really is: sophisticated, hip, ancient, modern, friendly, spiritual and beautiful.”

What a waste! Not that it is a waste to promote Israel. On the contrary. But it is a waste to promote Israel under false pretences such as this. Look at this image: a beautiful girl, a strikingly modern city skyline. And look at the cool, clear, pristine reflection of the buildings in the water. The flash of this ad is betrayed by the murkiness of almost everything going on within Israel society now. The ad’s clean lines mask an underlying social reality. An Occupation. A nation adrift in despondency in the aftermath of the Lebanon war. A society buffeted by high-level sex and corruption scandals.

And speaking of “spiritual,” let’s juxtapose this ad with today’s headline:

Four children killed in Israeli attack

A PALESTINIAN mother and her four children were killed while eating breakfast yesterday in Gaza when Israeli missiles struck…their house…

I’m no advertising expert so I can’t tell Israel how to promote itself. But I can tell Israel that as long as these headlines come out practically daily, there isn’t a hope in hell that its $11-million tourism campaign will convince anyone other than Israel’s die hard supporters that “No one belongs here more than you,” as the campaign slogan inveigles.

I think the thing that really broke the spell for me regarding this ad was the come-on for all the eligibile male bachelors in the audience–the promise that you too might win Maya Weiser’s hand and heart for your very own…if you but make that trip to Israel. Touching.

tags 60th anniversary, israeli tourism, youll love israel from the first shalom

Some of you may know that the English newspaper, The Guardian, is expanding its coverage of the U.S. It’s website has a global reach and now has a significant portion of its readers here in this country. As part of this expansion, Comment is Free, the Guardian’s daily blog about politics and international affairs will be adding a U.S. section come June.

The Washington DC editor asked me if I would contribute a weekly column to CiF. This is really a dream come true for me. When you first start blogging as I did in 2003, you sometimes feel like you’re shouting down a dark hole and all you hear in reply is your own echo. It’s gratifying when the mainstream media validates the value of your work.

In addition, there is still a significant percentage of people who look down their noses at political blogs as a reliable research source of information or opinion. Usually those people are the ones who disagree with your views to begin with and their dismissiveness tends to confirm their opinions in a loop of circular reasoning. I appreciate the Guardian granting its imprimatur to my work. It goes some ways toward combating this prejudice.

A perfect example of this is Wikipedia, the world’s largest source of online research. It has a deeply confusing attitude toward blogs as sources for Wikipedia articles. Generally, they are frowned upon as unreliable since they are self-published sources, a definite no-no in the Wikipedia world. However, if you are a genuine expert in the field you write about, then blogs can be accepted as sources:

Self-published material may…be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications

But it seems up to the blogger and Wikipedia members to sort out whether you are an expert or not. If you consider yourself an expert, and even if your blog presents original research on a topic, if another member disagrees they can remove your links at will and quote you irrelevant chapter and verse to “justify” their actions.

In my case, there are several members who have campaigned to remove references to my blog (read my Talk page) in Wikipedia articles arguing that by linking to my blog I’ve created a conflict of interest. Given that the conflict of interest rules were created mainly to prevent commercial entities from either promoting themselves or tearing down their rivals, they aren’t relevant to my situation. They also argue that despite my background in the field about which I write, since I am not a professional journalist, author, or academic, my contributions are not trustworthy and not disinterested. Considering that Wikipedia exists online and exploits all the opportunities that the web offers to disseminate knowledge, I find it ironic that it’s standards are so conventional. Either you write a book, newspaper or magazine article, or academic journal article if you wish to be an acceptable source. Write a blog and you’re chopped liver.

A senior Wikipedia editor I respect recently wrote to me about a phenomenon called “wikilawyering,” a tendency, as the online encyclopedia grows ever larger and more complicated, to parse the rules to an incredibly fine degree. In Talmudic interpretation it’s known as pilpul or in English ‘casuistry.’ He examined the work of my opponents and told me that it was such an example. I’m hoping to be working with him and other sympathetic Wikipedia members to figure out how serious political blogs can be treated with more respect within the Wikipedia universe.

And should anyone reading this edit Wikipedia articles, I’d welcome my work being referenced and linked there.

Though the pay at CiF isn’t much, at least I am getting paid. I remember a hilarious story Calvin Trillin wrote I believe in the New Yorker about a nice lunch The Nation’s editor treated him to over a discussion of his becoming a contributing writer. Trillin relates jocularly that the fee for his pieces was to be “in the low three figures.” But three figures is better than no figures.

My English friend, Michael Furmanovsky wrote to me saying: “You should be proud to be contributing to the best newspaper in the world.” As a dyed in the wool NY Times reader I find it difficult to transfer that title to The Guardian. But the truth is that the Times has nowhere near the diversity of political opinion in its pages that The Guardian does. This is proven by the fact that it is The Guardian and not the Times which has developed Comment is Free, a terrific means of integrating the best of the blog world into mainstream media.

The Guardian truly lets a thousand flowers bloom. The Times seems to specialize in a limited and carefully selected number of hot-house flowers. It’s a different journalistic philosophy and while I value both–as a writer I’m especially grateful for The Guardian’s approach.

I want to continue encouraging readers to provide story ideas to me along with links and any other background information that is necessary to write it.

tags blogs as research sources, calvin trillin, comment-is-free, the-guardian, wikipedia

Israeli UN ambassador Dan Gillerman has brewed a mini-tempest in a teacup by taking the highly undiplomatic step of smearing the good name of a former U.S. president. I say “mini-tempest” not because Gillerman’s breach isn’t serious–it is very serious. Rather, I say this because Condi Rice doesn’t really care much that Gillerman had a hissy fit against Carter. I’ll bet privately she even approves at least somewhat of Gillerman’s attack. But for the purpose of protocol and diplomatic precedent she’s got to pretend to take umbrage at Gillerman’s backalley brawling tactics.

In addition to saying that Carter had “blood on his hands” for meeting Khaled Meshal, Gillerman also called Carter (keep in mind this is the only U.S. president to actually negotiate a peace treaty between Israel and one of its Arab enemies) an “enemy of Israel.”

The United States registered an official protest with Israel against its ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, for calling former U.S. President Jimmy Carter an “enemy of Israel” prior to Carter’s recent visit to the region.

A senior Foreign Ministry source said Saturday that the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv asked that Gillerman be made aware of the U.S. administration’s dissatisfaction with the disrespectful comments about the former U.S. President.

In addition, the State Department is planning to issue a public statement condemning comments made by Gillerman at a press conference in New York on Thursday, where he called Carter a “bigot.”

In my last post on this incident, I expressed the hope that Gillerman had gone “off the reservation” rather than that he was expressing the official position of the Israeli government regarding Carter. It appears the former explanation may be what happened. If that is the case, then the attack is no less disturbing as it means that Gillerman was making policy on his own in direct contravention of directives from his superiors–that is, Livni herself:

The same [foreign ministry] source said that Gillerman’s attack on Carter “surprised and embarrassed” Jerusalem, which contravened direct instructions from Livni to avoid comments on the former president.

Gillerman is scheduled to leave his post in several months. I wonder whether Livni will call him home early or leave him in place. I also wonder whether Gillerman, knowing full well that his incendiary remarks couldn’t hurt him this late in his UN tenure, is angling, like many of his predecessors, for a political career in the Likud. If that is the case, the Carter smear may be a transparent tactic to curry favor with the Bibi crowd.

Either way, an Israeli diplomat has just mugged a former U.S. president. It shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Gillerman is a two-bit political thug. Carter is a Nobel laureate.

tags anti-Israel, dan-gillerman, haaretz, U.S. fumes after Israeli envoy to UN brands Carter bigo

My new Comment is Free post, Giving Up the Golan, was published today. It calls on President Bush to engage with Syria and Israel to jump start a negotiating process that would lead to peace. And if Bush fails to lead, it calls for the presidential candidates to call Bush to task for his failure. I’m hoping that American Jews will tell their respective candidates AND their president to show leadership in bringing the parties together. Israel and Syria have gotten this far. It would be a tragedy if we didn’t do what we can and should to help them go the rest of the distance toward peace.

I’ve written to Eric Lynn, one of Obama’s Jewish liaison staff with my suggestion. He hasn’t replied. Presidential campaigns don’t seem to reply to bloggers, or at least to this blogger. I’m not naive enough to think that Obama is eager to jump into this issue. He probably thinks he has enough fires to put out without adding this one.

But I think telling George Bush that the U.S. could set an example in expediting an Israeli-Syrian peace process is the right thing to do. I don’t see how it could be very controversial among most Americans. Plus it would make Obama look presidential since he’d be taking a leadership role in staking out a principled position on a major foreign policy issue. But of course the Israel lobby has no interest in Israel making peace with Syria despite the fact that Ehud Olmert has just said Israel is prepared to return the Golan. This is a perfect example of a serious divergence between the Israel lobby and the Israeli government–which never happens if you read what some AIPAC apologists write.

For the Israel lobby, Syria is anathema; the idea of returning any territory to an Arab state is anathema; the prospect of an Israeli PM saying he’s prepared to do so has got to give them the willies. I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

But does that mean that Barack Obama can’t stake out ground on this issue? No. He did precisely that in Cleveland when he told Jewish leaders that being pro-Israel does not mean being pro-Likud. He should expand on that and say that being pro-Israel means being pro-peace; and returning the Golan will hasten peace.  If Olmert can say it, why can’t Obama?

tags comment-is-free, giving up the golan, israeli-syrian peace, obama

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, signaled flexibility last month by saying that military attacks on Gaza would stop if its Hamas rulers stopped cross-border rocket salvos.

Israel dismissed a proposal by the Palestinian group Hamas for a six-month truce in the Gaza Strip…

New York Times

So, let’s get this straight: Olmert says if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israel that he’ll stop IDF attacks on Gaza; then Hamas offers to do precisely that and Israel refuses. Curiouser and curiouser…

Ah, but Israel can afford to play the tough guy on this one. Its current policy toward Hamas is going so swimmingly. 1.5 million Gazans subsisting on UN food rations. Qassams raining down on Sderot. Israelis killed in cross border infiltrations. Shalit still in his kidnappers’ hands. Hamas holding onto power with no dent made in its popularity by Israel’s tough love approach. Yes, it’s going so well there’s absolutely no need to meet Hamas halfway. Take the high road. They’ll come around. They always do.

And don’t forget those media talking points–Israel is the one who wants peace. Israel is the one open to compromise. It’s just those nasty terrorists who you can’t trust as far as you can throw ‘em.

No doubt tomorrow’s headline in Israeli dailies will trumpet how Hamas is rearming and preparing for all-out war; how Iran is resupplying Hamas with bigger and better rockets. All part of the IDF-intelligence apparatus spin machine trying to spook Israelis into believing they have no recourse but to continue with the same bankrupt policy which has produced no results for so long.

Look at what Israel’s UN ambassador did to Jimmy Carter yesterday. For having the temerity to meet with Hamas, encourage a deputy prime minister to meet with Hamas, and for urging Israel to meet with Hamas–Gillerman took out the long knives and put a shiv in Carter’s gut calling him “a bigot” with “blood on his hands.” Wow. That’s pretty good knife play for a mere diplomat. Maybe he learned to rough his victims up verbally with some prior training in the Israeli Border Police.

tags gaza, israel rejects hamas ceasefire offer, qassams, shalit

Thanks to former NPR reporter and former ABC news producer and bureau chief Deb Amos, who forwarded to me this wonderful YouTube video which I'd never seen before. The graphic technique has been used often before, but it tells a wonderful story of Arab-Americans who are just like you and me, while being of another religious and ethnic tradition. The differences between us are no more nor less than the differences between any one American and another. You almost have to watch the film and devote your attention fully to it and then do the same for the song because each make very strong statements. The ...

I read that headline tonight and got sick to my stomach. But I wasn't going to write about it because it just didn't rate high enough on my disgust-o-meter. After all, with Israel offering to return the Golan and Hamas on the verge of approving a temporary Gaza ceasefire there is actually something positive to write about for a change. But then Michael Furmanovsky, an old friend living in Japan, said he was waiting to hear what I had to say. I couldn't let an old friend down now could I? So here's what Dan Gillerman, God and Israel's gift to international diplomacy, had to say about America's former president, Nobel laureate and the statesman responsible for negotiating ...

If you liked Monty Python as much as I, you'll remember the skit in which a dirty leering character asks his pub mate whether his wife "does it." The conspiratorial refrain goes: "Wink-wink. Nudge-nudge. Know what I mean, know what I mean?" It's absolutely hilarious in a knowing, low-down sort of way. An article in today's Washington Post which outlines a secret Bush Administration agreement with Ariel Sharon to permit major settlement expansion isn't as hilarious. But it surely is a dirty low-down trick on the Palestinians whose future territorial integrity it has imperiled: A letter that President Bush personally delivered to ...

I've hesitated in writing about this story reported yesterday in Haaretz since allowing potentially good news to go to your head is a fatal mistake regarding Middle East politics. Optimism always seems to be repaid with a harsh slap in the face. But the NY Times is also reporting the story today so I figured what the hell--if war breaks out tomorrow then we'll all have egg on our faces. Syria and Israel are making all the right noises about being prepared to make peace with each other. The Turkish prime minister carried a message from Ehud Olmert to Bashir Assad that the former was prepared to return all of the Golan in return for peace. ...