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 May, 2009

Obama Restores Mossad Spy’s Visa

Saturday, May 16th, 2009

Uzi Arad met with Larry Franklin in the Pentagon cafeteria to shoot the breeze (if you believe Arad).  I’ve got a few other ideas what they were doing.  Because this senior Mossad operative was caught poaching U.S. secrets from Pentagon officials his U.S. visa was revoked by the Bush Administration in 2007.

But given that we’re talking about Israel here, its spies seems to have the resilience of a Punch and Judy show clown.  Knock ‘em down a few times and they bounce right back.  At least, that’s what’s happened to Arad.  After being appointed Bibi Netanyahu’s national security advisor, he gained a new lease on life.  The Obama administration also restored Arad’s visa:

Netanyahu’s advisers – attorney Yitzhak Molcho, National Security Council head Uzi Arad and public relations chief Ron Dermer – will return Friday from preparatory talks in the U.S. capital.

Because of the regulation under which his visa was revoked only the attorney general or president may restore it.  That means the decision to do so went very high.  And no one either in Israel or here actually announced the decision.  They just figured it would be better to let bloggers try to make something of it.

Eli Lake, who reported originally on Arad’s visa denial for the Washington Times seems to have dropped the story.  I wonder why.

Frankly, I’m shocked that Obama would give in on this one.  Unless he figures he’s going to sock it to Bibi at next week’s meeting and he might as well throw him a sop like Arad.  H/t to Helena Cobban.

Israel’s U.S. Campaign for War Against Iran

Friday, May 15th, 2009

Comment is Free has just published a shorter version of this piece.

Despite the ballyhoo of the recent Aipac national policy conference in Washington, when Israel-U.S. bonds were feted, relations between the two countries have not been more strained since 1991.  That was when George H.W. Bush fiercely lobbied Yitzchak Shamir to join in the Madrid peace conference.  Relations reached their nadir when James Baker uttered his infamous remark about American Jewish pro-Israel supporters: “F*(k the Jews, they don’t even vote for us.”  If relations continue to deteriorate in coming months as well they might, we might have to go back to the Suez crisis of 1956 to find a time when relations were this fraught.

A case in point is Iran.  That bogey-nation was everywhere at Aipac.  Every keynote speech– if they weren’t directly written by that group’s staff–seemed remarkably scripted and “on message” concerning the existential threat that Iran poses not just to Israel, but the entire world.  In fact, there seems to be a deliberate attempt NOT to include Israel itself as a victim of a belligerent Iran.  Word has gone forth from Jerusalem that to frame the issue as one of universal jeopardy, rather than endangering merely Israel.

IF Iran had ballistic missiles and IF it had a nuclear weapon, it could THEORETICALLY hit these nations

IF Iran had ballistic missiles and IF it had a nuclear weapon, it could THEORETICALLY hit these nations

The glossy press brochure (see above) shows a map centered on Iran and beyond, with a dark ominous ring around Iran’s neighbors as far away as India, Russia, West Africa and Eastern Europe.  The message: these are the countries under imminent threat of Iranian ballistic missiles.  The brochure copy even intimates that the next step for Iran is “building a missile with range to reach U.S. territory.”  Never mind that Iran doesn’t yet have any ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear weapon, nor will it have the bomb itself for anywhere from a year to five years depending on which you source you choose to believe.

In Israel and Aipac’s eyes, Iran is the war-mongering, hegemonic Arab regime that seeks to project its power and dominate the region.  Never mind that Iran has never in modern history launched a war of its own (though it has fought back once attacked cf. the Iran-Iraq war).  Never mind that ISRAEL is already a serial nuclear power who has launched multiple wars against its Arab enemies.

Iran is the nation intent on a “second Holocaust.” And not just annihilating the Israeli people, but the entire JEWISH people.  The enormity and brazenness of what Israel is trying to get us all to believe about Iran is mind-boggling.

The counter-arguments above are a vain attempt at reason.  There is little reason to the Israeli campaign.  It is a visceral , fear-fueled invocation of dark forces and emotions.  It operates intellectually, but even moreso unconsciously.  It is based on prejudices and ignorance about Iran, its people, its government, its religion, and its culture.

Israel is in the midst of a massive diplomatic, political and intelligence campaign, both public and covert, that could lead, if those officials behind it have their way, to a military strike on Iran.  It is a war for the hearts and minds of Americans.  Or you might call it the war before the war.  In intelligence circles, this Israeli project is known as perception management and defined by the Department of Defense as:

Actions to convey and/or deny information…to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders…ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to [U.S.] objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.

The Israelis are, I believe, using the template of the Bush administration’s run-up to the Iraq war.  First the U.S. government advocated half-hearted efforts at diplomatic engagement, and then it ratcheted up pressure through sanctions and UN resolutions.  That is where the Israeli campaign stands now.

Aipac’s members carried a unified message to Capitol Hill during their lobbying of senators and House members.  They demanded that Congress pass the most draconian sanctions ever proposed against Iran.  They demanded that Iran be offered a limited time in which to respond to an ultimatum insisting that it drop its nuclear program.

What then?  If you review Aipac’s literature and various op ed pieces published either by Israeli diplomats or their American Jewish front men in U.S. media, they don’t specify what comes next.

But this too is part of the strategy which has clearly defined intervals.  What happens during one leads inexorably to the next.  You don’t allude to what the substance of the next stage will be until it happens.  But any sensible person knows that the final step will be war (“Israeli leaders have…hinted at pre-emptive military strikes if they decide that diplomacy has failed”).

The Israelis surely know that the Obama administration will never go to war against Iran.  In fact, they know that the Obama would not even approve Israel doing so.  But I’ve become convinced over time that Israel is prepared at some date in the future to attack Iran itself, and even against the wishes of the U.S.

This of course will put Obama in an untenable position: do U.S. forces attack the Israelis (in effect defending the Iranians) and risk the fallout that would occur in relations between the Democratic administration and American Jews?  Or does he allow the Israelis to carry on to their targets and bomb Iran, accepting the bloodletting and mayhem that will inevitably result?  If Israel wishes for the latter outcome, they must lay the groundwork here in the U.S. for tacit acceptance by the American people of a third-party attack on Iran.

Indeed, they are a good deal of the way toward this goal as the latest Rasmussen Report reveals.  According to it, 49% of Americans believe that if Israel attacks Iran that the U.S. should help.

Israel exploits a willing circle of Likudist advocacy groups and think-tanks like Washington Institute for Near East Peace, the Israel Project, Aipac, and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which are closely scripted and tightly coordinate their political message with Israeli diplomatics.  While some of these groups deny such affiliation, there is extensive proof of such scripting and amplification of an Israeli government agenda.  Though of course, there may be cases in which the organizations know the needs of their patrons so well that they need no prompting to express them.

Israel, along with enablers like Aipac and American Jewish supporters, have not shrunk from hounding their critics.  One peace activist here so angered Israeli authorities, that he was driven from a job through an orchestrated whispering campaign in the Jewish community that also included a disparaging article leaked to an all-too-willing reporter.

Aipac too, apparently has its own enemies list which includes the Guardian’s Chris McGreal, who duly registered for the national conference.  When he entered the Washington Convention Center to pick up his credentials he was directed to step aside, where he was told that he was persona non grata.  Security guards ushered him from the hall.  Chris’ sin?  He’d written the week before the conference that Aipac “drives” fund-raising for members of Congress.  Of course, this is a true statement though Aipac is careful to maintain the fiction that it has no direct involvement in political fundraising.  Of course, it is its leadership and members who maintain scores of PACs and who coordinate their giving directly or indirectly with Aipac.  But you mustn’t even hint at any connection between fundraising and Aipac or risk being sentenced to pro-Israel Siberia.

The level of hubris necessary to pull this off is astonishing.  Fresh off the dismissal of the Rosen-Weissman spy charges, Aipac is flexing its political muscle and reminding the world of its resurgence.  They do this through a combination of clandestine manipulation, public lobbying and punishing their enemies.

Returning to Israel itself, the Netanyahu regime has become a single issue government.  It is all Iran, all the time.  Netanyahu will rise or fall on Iran.  He reasons if he can shrei about a “second Holocaust” and blare headlines about the threat that Iran poses to the world, no one will notice that Israel is doing nothing to resolve any of the conflicts with its immediate neighbors.  It’s quite a deft maneuver representing yet another weapon in the national arsenal of delay and obfuscation going all the way back to 1967.

We in the U.S. must be prepared to resist.  We must protect ourselves from Israel’s propaganda offensive ginning up war with Iran.  We must encourage the president to stay strong in his commitment to Israeli-Arab peace, whether or not Israel is a willing partner.  Keeping our eyes on the prize of peace is going to be the hardest challenge of all, because the Netanyahu government seems to be doing everything in its power to divert world attention from the subject through deeds both covert and transparent.

Specter Embraces Pipes Islamophobia

Friday, May 15th, 2009

Matt Duss notes a Washington Independent report that Arlen Specter will deliver the opening address to a right-wing anti-Muslim conference hosted by Daniel Pipes Middle East Forum:

A coalition of conservative legal groups will host a “Libel Lawfare: Silencing Criticism of Radical Islam,” a conference on how “Islamist lawfare” is imperiling free speech in America. Confirmed speakers include neoconservative foreign policy guru Frank Gaffney, lawyer Andrew C. McCarthy (who turned down an invitation to a White House counterterrorism conference to protest administration policy), Islam critic David Pipes, and… Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who will give the opening speech.

Not to mention Big Al Dershowitz, king of Islamophobes, who’ll be there in all his glory.  What in God’s name is Specter, a newly minted Democrat, doing in such wingnutty company?  In case you doubt that adjective, here is the conference agenda:

Islamists have launched a two-pronged effort to suppress free discourse on such subjects as Islam, radical Islam, terrorism, and terrorist funding:

* By filing predatory lawsuits.
* By passing “hate speech” and defamation laws.

Victims of these “lawfare” attacks have included the famous and the obscure, politicians, journalists, analysts and plain citizens.

This inhibition has great consequences, for when discussion of Islam and terrorism are limited, radical Islam is empowered and Western civilization is imperiled.

Issues to be discussed…include: A close analysis of Islamist methods; the possible need for legislation to protect free speech on these topics; a comparison of the situation in Europe and the United States; and ways to prevent the United Nations from curtailing discussion of Islam.

There are many remarkable notions in this bill of attainder. First, the notion of a vast Muslim-wing conspiracy to destroy the Jewish neocon right. Second, a massive operation to impose Islamic will on the west. Third, a campaign to destroy constitutional rights.  Among Pipes’ stranger, more paranoiac notions is the existence of a shadowy campaign to impose Sharia law on U.S. society.

What I find ironic in all this is the hypocritical approach to the notion of what they call “lawfare.” First, the fact that Pipesians themselves use intimidation, lawsuits, and smear campaigns against their Jewish and Muslim opponents in precisely the same way they claim Muslims do against them.

Just as an example, two members of the Stop the Madrasa campaign which led to the firing of the New York City public school principal because she was an outspoken Muslim, filed suit against her for allegedly defaming them. Rachel Neuwirth, another Pipesian, has also filed suit against me for libel for calling her a “Kahanist swine” here in this blog. I could go on and on with other examples, but you get the message. Apparently, free speech and other constitutional rights only extend to people who agree with the Islamophobes.  Others need not apply.

Below, you’ll find a perfect distillation of the Pipes’ and the Islamophobic right’s bogus methods of political analysis:

[Gaffney's] Center for Security Policy [published], The Rise of the Iran Lobby, which claimed that “a complex network of individuals and organizations with ties to the clerical regime in Tehran is pressing forward in seeming synchrony to influence the new U.S. administration’s policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Among those listed as part of the “network” were Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, Ambassador Dennis Ross, Council on Foreign Relations Committee president Richard Haas, and the Center for a New American Security, simply by virtue of the fact that “the foreign policy positions of [CNAS's] affiliates correspond strongly to the preferred policy positions of Tehran’s mullahs.”

Ellison, Ross and others are “tied” to the Iran lobby and the regime not because of any actual evidence, but because their views allegedly “correspond strongly” to the alleged views of the mullahs. No proof provided. All smear, all the time.

In addition, this tactic of turning your opponents legitimate claims back against them is tried and true psy ops strategy. For those of us who embrace the notion that the Israel lobby exerts a noxious influence on U.S. policy, Gaffney has just attempted to turn the tables. Unlike our analysis of the Israel lobby, he has absolutely no evidence that there is any such thing as an “Iran lobby.” No organizations, no personnel, no secret meetings of the cabal. This is a “wing and a prayer” tactic meant to throw the other side on the defensive.

I would also note that I’ve reported that the Israeli embassy has been closely monitoring the schedule, views and activities of Rep. Ellison and others, as potential opponents of Israel’s interests. So what better way for the Pipesians to deflect this unsavory news than claim that Ellison is a card-carrying member of the Iran lobby?

I hope that Pennsylvanians and Pennsylvania bloggers will pick up on Specter’s involvement with this execrable anti-Muslim project and warn him away from making such a political blunder.  Arlen, you’ve made common cause with a bunch of Jewish loonies.  Someone should stop you before you hurt yourself.  I know you’re a tired old geezer  who’s lost his way politically and otherwise, but that’s no excuse.  And man, do the Democrats have some soul-searching to do about embracing this exemplar of self-righteousness, self-interest, and self-absorption.

One name I half expected to see on the speaker list (and am disappointed not to see) is Jewish fascist David Yerushalmi, who also played a leading role in Stop the Madrasa and has championed the idea of establishing concentration camps on U.S. soil for American-Muslim undesirables (among other things).  And where’s Joe Lieberman?  He and Specter are practically Islamophobic blood brothers.

Palestinians Swimming in an Israeli Sea

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

Julien Bousac has captured the surreal nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this fantasy map of Palestine imagined as an Aegean-like island paradise.  What’s so striking about the map is that it imagines concentrations of Palestinian population as islands and the remaining Jewish settlements as the sea.  The result is this strange map.

Eastern Palestine Archipelago (map: Julien Bousac)

Eastern Palestine Archipelago (map: Julien Bousac)

Maps are more than just graphic representations of geography or territory.  As we’ve seen before during the conflict, maps make political statements.  Just as a fer instance, remember the rightists who blow their stack when Arab maps don’t show Israel?  Or the Palestinians who blow their stack at Israeli maps which show the Occupied Territories as part of Israel proper?

What is remarkable about this map is that it provides a visual representation of the fragmentation of the West Bank population.  You can hear analysts decry the encroaching settlements and their toxic effect on the potential for a future Palestinian state.  But nothing brings this home like an image.

The cartographer, Julien Bousac, also invokes deft political wit by featuring ferry lines connecting the various Palestinian communities as if they were Aegean islands.  Here is Bousac discussing his artistic/political intent:

“…The full map…is…an illustration of the West Bank’s ongoing fragmentation based on the (originally temporary) A/B/C zoning which came out of the Oslo process, still valid until now. To make things clear, areas ‘under water’ strictly reflect C zones, plus the East Jerusalem area, i.e. areas that have officially remained under full Israeli control and occupation following the Agreements. These include all Israeli settlements and outposts as well as Palestinian populated areas.”

Mr Boussac took advantage of the resulting archipelago effect “to use typical tourist maps codes (mainly icons) to sharpen the contrast between the fantasies raised by seemingly paradise-like islands and the Palestinian Territories grim reality.” The map does have a strong vacationy vibe to it – but whether that is because of the archipelago-shaped subject matter, or due to the cheerful colour scheme is a matter for debate.

Those colours, incidentally, denote urban areas (orange), nature reserves (shaded), zones of partial autonomy (dark green) and of total autonomy (light green). Totally fanciful are of course the dotted lines symbolising shipping links, the palm trees signifying protected beachland, and the purple symbols representing various aspects of seaside pleasure. The blue icon, labelled Zone sous surveillance (‘Zone under surveillance’) has some bearing on reality, as the locations of the warships match those of permanent Israeli checkpoints.

Some of the paradisiacally named islands include Ile au Miel (Honey Island), Ile aux Oliviers (Isle of the Olive Trees), Ile Sainte (Holy Island) and Ile aux Moutons (Sheep Island), although the naming of Ile sous le Mur (Island beneath the Wall) constitutes a relapse into the grimness of the area’s reality.

Over the course of decades of political activism, I’ve noticed that many of those on the extreme right and extreme left seem to have lost their senses of humor and irony (Dick Cheney is a perfect example for the right) somewhere along the political way.  A Jewish example of this phenomenon is Jonathan Tobin, writing about the map at Commentary, in a piece histrionically titled Jews Driven Into the Sea at Last.

Poor Jonathan.  He seems to have entirely missed the boat on this.  Not to mention that he manages to invoke, yet again and for the 10 millionth time, the specter of the left’s alleged hatred of Israel and propensity to tolerate Jewish genocide.  For him, the map represents Jews being thrown into the sea.  I kid you not.  Just to tickle your funny bone, here’s Tobin completely missing the point:

Julien Bousac has created a vision of a Palestinian state on the West Bank in which the Jews are literally under water.

First, we have the little problem of “Jews,” which is not at all what Bousac has described.  Rather, Bousac is talking about Israelis.  There is a big difference though that appears lost on Tobin. Contrary to what Tobin believes, the Israelis are not “under water,” rather they ARE the water.  There is a big difference.  It is the Palestinians who are surrounded by the Israeli sea.  If anyone is threatened with drowning it is them, not the Israelis.

Amira Hass Arrested by Israelis After Leaving Gaza

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009
Israeli police detain Haaretz reporter Amira Hass leaving Gaza

Israeli police detain Haaretz reporter Amira Hass leaving Gaza

So this is what Israeli democracy has come to: an Israeli journalist, covering one of the most important news stories facing her country, is arrested.  On what charge?  Basically, doing her job:

Israel Police on Tuesday detained Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass upon her exit from the Gaza Strip, where she had been living and reporting over the last few months.

Hass was arrested and taken in for questioning immediately after crossing the border, for violating a law which forbids residence in an enemy state. She was released on bail after promising not to enter the Gaza Strip over the next 30 days.

Hass is the first Israeli journalist to enter the Gaza Strip in more than two years, since the Israel Defense Forces issued an entry ban following the abduction of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in a 2006 cross-border raid by Palestinian militants.

Last December, Hass was arrested by soldiers at the Erez Checkpoint as she tried to cross into Israel after having entered the Gaza Strip aboard a ship run by peace activists from Europe.

She decided to challenge Israel’s refusal to allow its own nation’s journalists cover Gaza, where no Israeli had reported for the past two years.  That means during Operation Drop Dead (Cast Lead) and other Israeli incursions, while a few brave foreign reporters covered the conflict, no Israeli could do so.  Their own country was prosecuting a devastating war against the Gazan people, yet no one could enter and tell Israelis what was happening.

Brava to Amira Hass.  We must muster all the support we can for her.  Go to the phonebook and look up the phone number for your local Israeli consulate or embassy.  Call and tell them to drop the charges against her immediately.

This is nothing more than the rightist goons of the Israeli police and Bibiphiles thumping their chests and, like good gorillas everywhere, establishing their dominance (of the political process).  The Israeli military and intelligence can brook no opposition, no chinks in the national consensus against Hamas.  Anyone who challenges prevailing views much be criminalized.  This is what they did to Azmi Bishara in their whispering campaign against him (with no charges filed), and Jeff Halper when he took the Free Gaza ship and later returned to Israel.

Undoubtedly, the police will decide not to pursue these charges.  But the fact that they levelled them at all is disturbing, especially in a country that likes to call itself (inaccurately) the only democracy in the Middle East. And lest we make the mistake of only criticizing Israel, we should remember that the last time Hass visited Gaza she was detained and hustled out of the place by Hamas goons who were frightened that an Israeli journalist actually was interested in reporting on their plight for an Israeli audience. The thought must’ve sent shivers up and down their spine.

H/t to Joel Katz

Obama-Clinton Continue Bush’s Denial of Ramadan U.S. Entry

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

The Bush administration made a lot of bone-headed decisions regarding U.S. relations with the world Muslim community. The decision to bar Tariq Ramadan entry to the U.S. to teach a course of interfaith dialogue at Notre Dame, was one of the worst (though certainly not THE worst). So it comes as a great shock to read Aziz Poonawalla’s blog today in which he notes that the Obama administration seems willing to tread the same path continuing to argue Ramadan is a figure too dangerous for Americans to know.

In legal proceedings, the Justice Department argues that no court should overturn a consular decision like the one to deny Ramadan entry.  Why, for heaven’s sake, do Justice and State continue down the same barren road traveled by the Bushites?  Why not just dump the entire farce and say the man is welcome here to teach, preach, whatever??  What possible danger can he pose?

The Obama administration’s position came as a shock to many.

“It’s disappointing to come here and hear Obama administration lawyers argue the same sweeping executive power arguments,” Jameel Jaffer, lawyer and ACLU National Security Project director, said after the hearing.

He told the court that the government had failed to identify “legitimate and bona fide reasons for the exclusion.”

Civil rights groups had hoped for a reversal of Bush policy of excluding foreign scholars from on the basis of their political beliefs.

…”While the government has an interest in excluding people who present a threat to the country, it doesn’t have any legitimate interest in excluding foreign nationals simply because of their political views. The Bush administration was wrong to revive this Cold War practice, and the Obama administration should not defend it,” Jaffer insisted.

“There should be a clean break of the Bush administration national security policies.”

“US citizens and US resident are harmed by…the exclusion of people based on the content of their speech.”

You’ll recall Bushites first argued Ramandan supported terror.  When that argument didn’t fly they argued he’s donated to charity which later was found to have supported Hamas, even though at the time of his donation neither Hamas nor the charity were on any federally proscribed list.

C’mon guys, let’s get out from under Bush’s inanities and do the right thing.  As Aziz points out, our president intends to travel to Egypt shortly and make a major address to the Muslim world about our nation’s willingness to reach out a hand in, if not friendship, at least tolerance of Arab and Muslim peoples.  Does he want this stain to tarnish the otherwise laudable goals of his address?

If the Iranians can release Roxanne Saberi from prison in order to further the possibility for dialogue with the U.S. can’t we do the same and give Tariq Ramadan and the American people the gift of being able to hear his ideas directly on our own soil?  If we are frightened of Ramadan then how can we look the world’s Muslims in the eye and say we aren’t frightened of them as well?

Hey, the Amerian Jewish Committee has a strong program dealing with interfaith dialogue.  If they believe in dialogue with Muslims as well you’d think they might make a statement even marginally supportive of Ramadan.  Silence is deafening.

Steve Earle Releases ‘Townes’

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

Steve Earle is one of America’s great singer-songwriters.  Townes Van Zandt was one of the greatest songwriters of his generation.  In this week’s N.Y. Times, I learned that for many years Van Zandt was Earle’s mentor.  For some reason, I’d never noticed the influence.

Van Zandt’s writing was intensely romantic and personal, shot through with melancholy.  Every song was a ballad, sung slow and sparely.  Earle’s lyrics hit many of these notes, but he is an intensely political writer, where Van Zandt wasn’t.  Also, Earle’s music style covers a lot more territory from up tempo rockers to slow, mournful Townes-like ballads.

It’s a wonderful day when Steve Earle releases an album of Townes covers called, aptly enough, Townes.  It’s like you’ve hit the daily double.

The Times features a wonderfully comprehensive story about the album and Earle’s problematic relationship with Van Zandt.  It asks the question: how could one of America’s great singer-songwriters (Van Zandt) been virtually unknown except among the musical cognoscenti?  Certainly, the author of Pancho and Lefty, To Live is to Fly, and White Freightliner Blues deserved more than to live in relative obscurity most of his life.  Earle alludes to drugs and other demons that afflicted Van Zandt and blocked any recognition he deserved.

After listening to a number of Earle’s covers, I can’t decide what I think of the record.  Some of Van Zandt’s best-known songs are performed in a stark, extremely spare style.  They feature little more than Earle’s cracked voice and his precise guitar picking.  While both Van Zandt and Earle feature singing voices with more character than beauty, I find I prefer Van Zandt’s, which retained a bit more charm and sweetness.  The songs featuring a musical ensemble, are less known but more appealing and soften Earle’s stark vocal style.  I prefer them. I really miss If I Needed You, one of Townes’ most evocative, achingly beautiful songs, which Earle omitted for some reason.

So if you love Steve, buy this record.  But if you don’t know Townes, then you owe it to yourself to hear the incomparable original.  That was a man.  That was an artist.  We’ll never see his like again.

About a decade or so ago, I saw Townes perform live at a New York City club.  He was a performer who didn’t come to you.  You had to come to him, to work at the listening experience and then bask in the piercing beauty and sadness of his lyrics.  His voice was an acquired taste, nasal, even slightly off key, but an integral part of the package.

But the thing that was most surprising was the hilarious stories and jokes.  In fact, he seemed to enjoy the jokes as much or more than the songs.  At times, it seemed that the songs might be incidental to the comedy.  The jokes were funny but odd and off kilter and always focussed on misfits and their folly.  It was perfectly fitting for Townes himself.

Ethan Bronner’s Mediocrity and Ir David Land Grab

Monday, May 11th, 2009

Neil Young once wrote that rust never sleeps and neither does Phil Weiss. For nearly two days I’ve been intending to write a post about the pro-settler plot to encircle Arab East Jerusalem with parks in order to reinforce a Jewish territorial claim to the land. The $120-million project which Akiva Eldar, Peace Now and Ir Amin have “outed” would serve a dual purpose of surrounding Arab neighborhoods with parkland, which would also inhibit any potential expansion or development in these communities and prevent them from linking to each other.

Wouldn’t you know that Phil got to the post before me and reported essentially the “take” that I had on Ethan Bronner’s execrable coverage of the same story in which the latter seemed oblivious to the fact that the plan is not only secret, but that it wasn’t vetted by the usual governmental planning authorities. Pro-Israel liberals like to talk about Israeli democracy, but conveniently forget that when certain political figures operate the levers of power and decide that conventional democratic oversight is “inconvenient” it somehow slips through the cracks; and no one on the Israeli Jewish side seems to notice or care much. Except, that is for Akiva Eldar.  And what is he but the typical crybaby Israeli leftist, right? Democracy? We’ve got more important things to worry about like combating the Arab population menace.

Ir David shiny happy billboard promoting its park land grab (Rita Castelnuovo/NYT)

Ir David shiny happy billboard promoting its park land grab (Rita Castelnuovo/NYT)

Returning to Bronner’s problematic approach, it is typically aimless reportage, which refuses to take a stand or analyze what is clearly right in front of his nose.  Instead of Eldar’s forthright term “secret” describing the nature of the plan and its execution, which confronts you in the Haaretz headline, Bronner buries the lede using the term “quiet” instead.  He also seems to adopt the turn of the century Zionist narrative that any territory not directly controlled by Jews is barren wasteland:

As part of the plan, garbage dumps and wastelands are being cleared and turned into lush gardens and parks, now already accessible to visitors who can walk along new footpaths and take in the majestic views, along with new signs and displays that point out significant points of Jewish history.

I guess one Arab’s piece of territory is another Jew’s “wasteland.”  And note the approving terms “lush gardens,” “new footpaths,” and “majestic views.”  Doesn’t it sound like those old Zionist brochures boasting how the halutzim have made the desert bloom??  This is inadequate journalism and what’s especially sad about it is that Bronner, if he bothered to respond to e mail sent to him by critics like me (which he doesn’t) would be entirely credulous and not have a clue why this is terribly slanted.

Further, the right-wing pro-settler private group which is both surreptitiously buying up Arab land or forcibly expelling Arab inhabitants from it is twice labelled by Bronner simply as a “private group.”  The fact that it refused to be interviewed for his article reflects merely how “delicate” the subject is, rather than a desire to continue to veil its actions in a cloak of secrecy (which is the real reason).  Only toward the end of his story does Bronner provide any context about the extremist leanings of Ir David (get a load of the money and sophistication behind this group’s website).

Bronner allocates three entire paragraphs to Israel’s bogus hasbara touting the merits of its plan:

As an official in the prime minister’s office put it in his answer: “Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish people for some 3,000 years and will remain the united capital of the State of Israel. Under Israeli sovereignty, for the first time in the history of Jerusalem, the different religious communities have enjoyed freedom of worship and the holy sites of all faiths have been protected.

He continued: “The government will continue to develop Jerusalem, development that will benefit all of Jerusalem’s diverse population and respect the different faiths and communities that together make Jerusalem such a special city.”

Israeli officials point out that when East Jerusalem was in Jordanian hands from 1949 to 1967, dozens of synagogues in the Jewish Quarter were destroyed, Jewish graves were desecrated and Jewish authorities were largely denied access to the Western Wall or other shrines. By contrast, in Jerusalem today Muslim and Christian authorities administer their holy sites in a complex power arrangement under Israeli control.

No word from the prime minister or Bronner on precisely how this land grab will “benefit all of Jerusalem’s diverse population and respect the different faiths…”  Of course, a proper reading between the lines which you should never expect Bronner to provide would lead one to understand that Ir David’s activities will benefit one part of Jerusalem’s population and will respect one faith, and only one: Jews.

Bronner typically relegates the views of progressive Israelis on the topic to the end of the article where fewer readers will have an opportunity to read them.  Such an journalistic decision also consciously or unconsciously reveals Bronner’s editorial emphasis (or “bias” as some would have it).

Anyway, Phil got there first, darn that guy. He’s good, and I’ve got to stay one step (well, maybe a half step) ahead of him or he’ll eat my lunch. Seriously though, last weekend I was in DC and had a chance to meet Phil, Adam Horowitz and my other peace blogging buddies including Jerry Haber, Dan Sisken, Jim Lobe, Dan Luban and Ali Gharib. We had a blast over dinner at Busboys and Poets. In further conversations, we decided to try to maintain an organized presence at the J Street October conference. So if you’re on the east coast (or even Midwest) stay tuned for developments. I’m hoping J Street might be interested in dedicating part of its agenda to some panel discussions about pro-peace blogging/media and furthering the I-P peace message.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE