October « 2009 « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Archive for October, 2009

Iran-Israel OpEd JTNews Refused to Publish

Monday, October 12th, 2009

UPDATE: The JTNews’ editor just telephoned me to say that he intended to publish the op ed I mention below. I want to say that I am grateful to him for reconsidering his position and for his willingness to add my voice to the communal debate over Israel and U.S. relations with Iran. The text of the ad copy below differs in a few key details from the op ed. The following was written when I was under the impression the op ed would not run except as a paid ad.

I had reason to believe that JTNews’ editor might reconsider his refusal to publish my op ed critiquing the Jewish federation’s community-wide conference, Understanding the Iranian Threat. A federation executive committee member told me she believed the paper would publish it. But she was wrong unfortunately. Apparently, the newspaper of record for Seattle’s Jewish community finds no reason to present an alternative to the hawkish panel speaking on October 21st at Temple DeHirsh Sinai. This program will present the Israeli consul general from San Francisco, the Jerusalem Post’s security correspondent, and an Aipac lobbyist as “experts” on Iran. It will be moderated by KIRO’s Dave Ross, who will give it a moderate gloss. Speakers will advocate draconian sanctions and possibly a military attack if those don’t work. Even more importantly, they will be at odds with the current policy of the U.S. administration. None of this the JTNews finds worthy of publication.

As a result, I’ve been compelled to pay for an ad in the coming issue. In light of the latest AJC survey finding that 65% of American Jews favor an attack on Iran by Israel, if you feel this message is an urgent one for Jews to read, please support my effort with a contribution. I’m really tickled that the pro-Israel hasbara right smears my effort by calling it “schnorring.” Clearly, these are ignorant Jews who do know at least one Yiddish word, but who don’t understand the Jewish commitment to tzedakah and tikun olam, of which this effort is a proud part.

Here is the ad copy:

Misunderstanding the Iran Threat

The Jewish Federation is hosting a community conference, Understanding the Iranian Threat, next week. The Federation website notes it will:

…look at Iran’s history and political landscape; [offering] an in-depth analysis of the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran; its strategic threat to Israel, the United States and the world; and, an understanding of how we can prevent it.

The Aipac, Jerusalem Post and Israeli government speakers, while qualified to represent the views of their employers, are not qualified to discuss “Iran’s history and political landscape” since they likely have never visited Iran, do not speak Farsi, and have no academic expertise in this field.

This event will present a partisan hawkish view of the Iranian crisis. Its expenses will be paid by Aipac and StandWithUs, hardline pro-Israel advocacy groups. Speakers will advocate “crippling sanctions” (Bibi Netanyahu’s term) and failing them, a possible military attack on Iran. Yaakov Katz, a conference speaker, wrote in the Post that an Israeli military attack on Iran could cause the current hardline government to fall. In fact, almost every serious Iran analyst and the leader of the opposition, Mir-Hussein Moussavi, have warned that further sanctions will hurt the reform movement.

We as Jews should think about the long-term impact of U.S. and Israeli actions. If we seek a democratic Iran open to foregoing nuclear weapons, then a pragmatic approach is the only way to go. As tempting as confronting Ahmadinejad is, we should think about the impact of threats and harsh rhetoric on political reality. Iran’s current hardline leadership is an unsavory lot. But a policy of confrontation will not attain our goal of eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat.

The Federation conference claims to represent the consensus views of the local Jewish community. But an American Jewish Committee national survey finds one-third of Jews oppose an attack on Iran. This realist strain in Jewish opinion will NOT (as of the day I write this) be represented by any panelist at the event.

JTNews has refused to publish this statement, claiming it is unnecessary because the event will not be partisan. I disagree. That is why I have to pay to make views known that should have been readily published and instead were suppressed.

The Israeli foreign ministry, Aipac and StandWithUs should not control this debate within the Jewish community. For that reason, a coalition of local community groups including some in the Jewish community will host a conference which will present the alternative views that should have been offered on October 21st.

On December 16th at Town Hall, Keith Weissman, former director of Aipac’s Iran desk, Ian Lustick, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, and Trita Parsi, director of the National Iranian American Council, will present a pragmatic approach to Iran, embracing diplomatic engagement and eschewing force. Unlike the Federation event, each of these speakers has academic and personal experience of Iran along with experience of Israel and its interests. I invite Seattle’s Jewish community to hear a point of view endorsed by one-third of our fellow Jews, one that will not be heard at the Jewish Federation event or in the pages of JTNews (except when you pay for it).

Tags: iran-attack, israeli foreign ministry, jewish seattle, jtnews
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society, Seattle | 8 Comments »

J Street’s Power Inspires Enemies

Monday, October 12th, 2009

Getting yourself on the cover of the NY Times Magazine can create enemies. You know J Street is striking a nerve when the Israel lobby goes to such lengths to smear it that it creates a website specifically devoted to the group and debunking it. Thanks to Rainer Waldman-Adkins for pointing out the emergence of a slick new hasbara site, JStreet Jive (Tracking Israel’s Jewish Defamers), written by an ironically and pseudonymously named Parhessia (“public” in Talmudic Aramaic). Isn’t it ridiculous for the lobby to create such a site and refuse to acknowledge who’s behind it and then call the author “Public?”

Here’s the alleged mission of the smearsheet:

While the majority of J Street grass roots supporters are indeed “Pro-Israel” in the sense that they believe in the Jewish people’s need for and the right to its historic and sovereign homeland, J Street’s leadership has demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards existential threats to Israel, a hyper-critical record against Israel and a virtually uncritical policy vis a vis Palestinians and Arab states.

Accuracy and accountability will be the watchwords of JStreetJive.

…If we all want peace and security in the region, let our words reflect a commitment to the truth.

The hasbara hacks are attempting to drive a wedge between J Streets “grassroots supporters” who are supposedly innocent dupes and its leaders who are in league with the Evil One. It’s a pathetic and quite transparent ploy. I almost gagged on my lunch when I read the last two lines claiming the site would be accurate and truthful. Those are in terribly short supply in rightist, pro-Israel sites like this one. They’re often collateral damage in the quest for the perfect smear.

I’ll give a big shout out at the J Street conference to anyone who can expose any information about who might be behind the site. Looking over the writing and production values it would appear to me this comes from a high-class operation, which leaves out most of the Israel lobby groups (whose websites are anything but that), including folks like David Horowitz and likely Daniel Pipes. I had a thought that it might be Pajamas Media since they are both sophisticated (at least in terms of their graphics, if not their substance). Also, the writing isn’t as typically mendacious as many of the loopy right-wing pro-Israel sites, which indicates either a real journalist involved or someone who knows how to present an argument (which is better than most of the wingnutty sites). I’d also include Michael Goldfarb and Commentary’s Noah Pollak in that category of possible suspects. And what about Marty Peretz, though perhaps even this might be beneath him (am I giving him too much credit?) .

Zvi Solow writes an interesting analysis which takes the possible source back to the Israeli hasbara apparatus:

It shows that the J street convention has got someone(s) in the Bibibarak government nervous.

It may be my Israeli paranoia but given Bibi’s US background, his sensitivity to the US media and the makeup of his intimate group of advisers – ex-US olim, religious (i.e., Orthodox), & mitnahalim or their supporters, I’d look for traces of Mike Oren’s friends (the prominence of his persona in the blog is telling), and the neo-con financial supporters of Merkaz Shalem, Israel Hayom etc.

That last reference was to the Shalem Center and Shelly Adelson’s Israel HaYom. Adelson and people associated with Oren would be an interesting guess.

I’m pleased that this site’s Alexa rating is north of 14-million. No one’s reading them, as well they shouldn’t. And even if a few of my readers do click the link above their ranking will remain well above that number. But please don’t click more than once.

Tags: hasbara, j street, jewish, pro-israel
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 3 Comments »

When Muslim-Jewish Dialogue Fails, and Other Tales of Jewish Alienation

Sunday, October 11th, 2009

Spinoza was right! The ultimate Jewish dissenter

To be a modern, thoughtful and identified (though not necessarily observant) Jew is to live both within a tradition and community, and at the same time to be alienated from it. Some people live more on one side of the divide than others. Some have their feet firmly planted within the community and are entirely comfortable there, while others live on the more alienated side of Jewish identity and do not affiliate.

I have always found this to be a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, my Jewish identity has been formed in the crucible of the community. I grew up in a Conservative synagogue in suburban New York. I enjoyed some of my best (and one or two of my less favorable) Jewish experiences at Camp Ramah in Nyack and New England, where I was introduced to some of the wonderful educators and spiritual leaders who founded Havurat Shalom in Cambridge and the New York Havurah. I earned a double degree from the Joint Program of Jewish Theological Seminary and Columbia University. I pursued a PhD in Hebrew literature. I worked as a fundraiser at two Jewish federations. I belong to a Conservative synagogue and raise my children within my tradition.

And yet, I have never felt fully comfortable and assimilated into this world. The Jewish liturgy leaves me with far more questions than answers. I consider myself an agnostic rather than a believer; though I am an agnostic who finds great meaning in our theology. Jewish communal politics as practiced today often leaves me cold. That is why I have gravitated toward the dissident side of Jewish life. I have been a leader or member of every progressive Jewish organization I can remember going back to Breira and New Jewish Agenda.

Unlike some on the Jewish left, I have never given up on the tradition or the organized Jewish community. I strongly believe that religious traditions are not monolithic entities, but rather organic and evolving processes. Even in something as unitary as the halacha, change is constant. That is why I have felt it worthwhile to continue to engage even when I am disappointed or alienated by what I read and hear from my co-religionists.

In this High Holiday season, when I tend to spend more time in shul, I got to contemplating a particularly alienating experience that happened last year. I belong to a Conservative synagogue known for being among the more liberal in town. Its members tend to be university professors or other professionals with quite a bit of Jewish background and knowledge. The Hebrew school has provided a good learning experience for my son, which is one of the reasons I remain despite the story I will tell.

Here’s the background for my story. Rabbi Marc Schneier founded the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding which last year began a national project of twinning mosques and synagogues for discussions about anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. I thought this might be a terrific project for my own synagogue to join. When I approached my rabbi, she too was enthusiastic. We had a meeting of a small group which began to plan for the event. The rabbi empowered me to search for a local Muslim partner. Then she went on vacation.

In the process, I inquired of local Muslim leaders for a mosque that might partner with us. Eventually I did find one, MAPS, an eastside mosque whose members were genuinely open and warm to the idea of twinning.

One of the other Muslim leaders I approached was Jeff Siddiqui. I had no idea that some members of the local Jewish community and my synagogue find Jeff to be an “enemy of Israel.” When they found out that I had asked Jeff for advice they began circulating various rumors about the Twinning event that raised fears among enough other members, so that when the rabbi returned she informed me that the event couldn’t go forward on the date we had planned. But she committed to me that it WOULD happen, perhaps even in the following month. I waited in vain for another planning meeting or word of when the event would happen.

When the rabbi called to tell me that some members had stirred up fear and mistrust of the event and that she was postponing it, I was truly hurt considering the many hours I had investing in recruiting a Muslim partner and meeting with their members to begin planning. The rabbi raised other issues too which distressed me. After initially suggesting that she and the imam could exchange pulpits with her preaching at the mosque and the Muslim cleric preaching from the bimah, she told me she “didn’t know what she had been thinking,” and that this was not going to be possible. She simply couldn’t offer the pulpit to an imam. Why would anyone feel they couldn’t do that?

Earlier, Walter Ruby, who coordinates the national Twinning project, had called to tell me that, given Seattle’s recent history of Muslim-Jewish violence, the N.Y. Times religion reporter wanted to come out for the synagogue-mosque event and interview the two spiritual leaders and other community members. My rabbi balked at this, throwing up an excuse I found incredible–that such coverage might embarrass the mosque by putting it into the spotlight. In actuality, MAPS welcomed the coverage. It was the rabbi and synagogue members who were experiencing cold feet. Frankly, I was dumbfounded. How many times are synagogues offered an opportunity to be featured in the pages of the N.Y. Times? I believe it would’ve been a huge publicity bonanza for the synagogue and put it on the map nationally in a positive light. But clearly, this wasn’t what the rabbi or congregation wanted, at least not connected to this issue.

While this was a very personal experience of disappointment for me, it is representative of an atmosphere of fear and mistrust that characterizes too many of my fellow Jews on issues that relate to Israel, Arabs or Islam. There is a small minority who either through ignorance or willful hate refuse to concede that the other side is worth engaging. It was these members of my synagogue, some of them I understand involved with StandWithUs, who led the surreptitious campaign to scuttle this event.

The twinning event never happened at my synagogue. Instead, I helped recruit another local rabbi, Daniel Weiner, to take up the cause and several months later Temple DeHirsh Sinai conducted a joint program with MAPS. As a result, my synagogue lost out on a wonderful opportunity to nurture a relationship with local Muslims.

My rabbi let me down. She promised something she never delivered. She never exchanged a word with me afterward about the program or why she dropped it. And that is one of the reasons why I feel alienated from my own synagogue and its spiritual leader. I understand it is not easy being a rabbi and being buffeted by these opposing political forces within one’s own synagogue. But I maintain that rabbis are meant to lead. Clearly, my rabbi knew that the Twinning project was worthwhile. Yet in the face of internal opposition she dropped the ball.

If we want to look to reasons why many American Jews are alienated from the organized community this is but one very personal example. Our leaders at times simply lack the courage of their convictions. This helps drive away those who are looking for courageous leadership that seeks to grapple with difficult questions raised by the Jewish engagement with modernity as exemplified in my case by the Twinning project.

Next month brings the second annual day of Twinning and my synagogue will again fail to deliver on its promise. I only wish there was a congregation more suited to my needs and interests with some of the good qualities (including some of the ones of my own rabbi) of the one I belong to now.

On a related note, my regular readers will know about my struggle with the local Jewish newspaper, JTNews, to incorporate a critical response to the upcoming Jewish federation hawkish, anti-Iran conference. The editor’s refusal (at least so far, though I’m still trying) to publish a statement embracing a pragmatic U.S. policy of diplomatic engagement toward Iran has caused me to prepare an ad for the paper in the event of his ultimate rejection. By the way, the ad will cost between $375-675 depending on the size I choose and I’m still raising funds to pay for it. I would welcome your contribution to the cause of fighting the suppression of worthy ideas in the Seattle Jewish community.

This is yet another example of a Jewish community so provincial that it organizes a panel on Iran at the behest of the Israeli foreign ministry, including only hawks eager to punish Iran with crippling sanctions and then attack it with force if it refuses to forego its nuclear research program; and then it refuses to open the pages of the community’s own newspaper to a legitimate alternate view (one embraced by no less a figure than Barack Obama). Once again, is it any wonder that so many feel so alienated from such insularity?

Many of the leaders of the community make the mistake of seeing criticism of the sort I articulate as expressing hostility for it or for Israel. That is yet another mistake as I come from the very same community and was shaped in formative ways by it. We silence our dissenters at our peril for they are like the proverbial canary in a coal mine. They bring attention to issues the majority would prefer to ignore. They raise impertinent, uncomfortable questions. This is all the more reason to value them and the role they play.

Instead, in this community the leader of StandWithUs writes to my fellow Jewish peace activists that I require mental health intervention. This unfortunately, represents the quality of some of our local leaders. And to my regret StandWithUs is considered a respected member of our community despite the slime and smear they spread. They’re a co-sponsor of the federation’s Iran conference. They’re looked to for guidance on issues related to Israel. To me, this feels like putting the patients in charge of the asylum (not that Seattle’s Jewish community is a mental asylum). Personally, the ascendance of SWU indicates to me yet another failure of leadership. Why will no one come forward and say that an organization that spreads lies about its Jewish enemies is not worthy of being a leader in this community?

Tags: Islam, jewish, jewish seattle, rabbi, stand-with-us
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Seattle | 18 Comments »

Know Me by My Enemies, the Sequel

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

Some enemies I’m proud to make. Steve Bronfman is one of them. Out of the blue, he wrote to me complaining that he’d been ejected from Helena Cobban’s comment threads. I thought: “Ferchrissakes, what does he want from me? Helena is a QUAKER for godsakes. If you get banned from her blog you must be a real twit.”

I mistakenly exchanged a few e mails with Steve until I discovered that he was a prolific pro-Israel hasbarist with far too much time on his hands. And now I’ve made his enemies list, I’m proud to say. In addition, Steve has made the unmannerly decision to post my private e mails to him without asking my permission to do so. Needless to say, if I’d known he was a blogger I wouldn’t have given him the time of day. Thank God, Comcast has a decent spam filter which will send his future e mails where they belong.

The thing that really tickles me about Steve’s blogroll is that I’m right up there with Helena as the baddies. While the good guys are some of the most execrable Jewish racist characters on the web.

I do wonder though why Steve would want to include a link in his blogroll to sites he finds objectionable. Doesn’t he realize he’ll be sending me site traffic (not much, considering how small his audience is)? I just wish someone with some real site traffic would attack me and link me in their blogroll! Actually, I’m kidding. LGF once did that and the mail was especially vicious until the Lizards’ attention span was depleted after about half an hour.

And a note for my “friends” who scour my blog for alleged hypocrisy, I DO sometimes post comments sent to me via e mail without the author’s permission. But I only do so when the e mail is a particularly vicious smear. I don’t view such attacks as deserving the consideration of a request for permission. And I did not attack Bronfman in such fashion.

Tags: hasbara
Posted in Blogs-Tech-Science, Mideast Peace | 8 Comments »

The Israeli Right Disses Obama’s Nobel

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

One way of knowing someone is by who their friends are. Another way is by their enemies. You can get a sense of the humanity (or lack thereof) of Barack Obama’s enemies by reading some of their responses to his Nobel Peace Prize.

Zvi Solow, professor at Ben Gurion University, writes of a few telling Israeli right-wing responses to the announcement. Zvi doesn’t name this source:

” The Norwegian Nobel committee was established by a leftist Parliament & the prize to Obama is the appreciation of a grateful world for the end of the Bush era”

The N.Y. Times puts the lie to this smear with the following information about the composition of the Nobel committee:

…In his [Alfred Nobel's] will, he instructed the Norwegian Parliament to appoint the selection committee. Because it is chosen to reflect roughly the balance of party strength in Norway, the current committee has members across the spectrum, from the Socialist Left Party to the far-right Progress Party.

An especially interesting reaction is this one from current Knesset speaker, Likud MK Reuven Rivlin:

“The problem is that now Obama will find it easier to mobilise the world to force a peace agreement on us. But an imposed peace will be short lived.”

This of course, goes to the commonly accepted Israeli right wing notion that the entire world is against and out to get us. This of course makes the obligation of Israel’s political leaders to maneuver among the world’s anti-Israel sharks to avoid being eaten. It never involves working with anyone outside Israel to actually try to come to terms with Israel’s traditional enemies. There is also a note of almost resigned acceptance of the notion that it may eventually come to the fact that the world will impose a peace agreement on Israel. I don’t think I’ve ever heard such sentiment expressed on the Israeli right.

It is indicative of the enormous disconnect between world, and Israeli opinion of Obama’s Middle East peace diplomacy, that he is viewed as pro-Israel by around 6% of Israelis. Unlike right wing Israelis, I’m not overly disturbed by this number because Obama isn’t president of Israel and doesn’t have to run in an Israeli election. Also, George Bush’s approval ratings were through the roof in Israel. And that is a reflection of how sycophantic his relationship was with that country. In order for there to be peace, perhaps an American president will have to endure some unpopularity. Do we really want a president who Bibi Netanyahu can proudly call “pro-Israel?”

Time Magazine offers a similarly downbeat assessment of the reception within Israel and the Arab world of the Nobel news:

…Beneath the veneer of formal congratulations, the Obama Nobel award is being viewed as an as yet undeserved laurel, as an embarrassment, by some even as an impediment to a sustainable peace.

…Bloggers have been harsher. “Thank you Nobel Prize Committee for awarding the most ridiculous Nobel Prize for Peace since 1994, when you awarded one to the terrorist leader Yasser Arafat,” wrote jewliscious.com blogger Dahlia, a student living in Israel. “Well done and kudos!”

Leave it to the scabrous Jewlicious to feature some of the more clueless commentary on the Peace Prize. StandWithUs or CAMERA couldn’t have said it better themselves. In fact, maybe Dahia is one of those SWU Israel fellows who are brought here on hasbara junkets. We’ve got a few making the rounds here in Seattle visiting unsuspecting Hebrew and high schools to offer their patriotic slant on “life in Israel.”

Tags: Barack Obama
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 2 Comments »

Saban Seeks 50% of Al Jazeera

Friday, October 9th, 2009

Saban & Power Rangers Assault on Al Jazeera!

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers take over the Arab world!!

Haaretz reports that Israeli-American media mogul, Haim Saban, is seeking a 50% stake in Al Jazeera. This is one strange story. One of Aipac’s most stalwart power brokers is trying to buy into the Arab world’s most important media property. There may be a business reason for Saban to do this, I don’t know. But there clearly is a powerful political motive. Imagine the possibility of co-opting Al Jazeera’s Israel coverage. It’s an Aipac wet dream. Not to mention Israeli intelligence agencies concerned with ensuring the Israeli narrative is heard in the Arab world. How do you say “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” in Arabic, anyway?

Haim Saban confers with Jane Harman, extension of his own power (i_Mishkenot)

If the emir of Qatar is seriously entertaining a Saban bid either he’s in financial difficulty or else he’s smokin’ some powerful weed. I can’t in a million years imagine why an Arab leader would be willing to give someone like Saban such immediate media cachet in the Arab world. Imagine George Soros buying half of Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp or Murdoch buying half the N.Y. Times. It’s that strange.

This is how much power Saban wields: when Jane Harman got herself in hot water for lobbying on behalf of the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, it was Haim Saban to whom she appealed for support in her quest. She was asking for Aipac to call in chits on her behalf and it was Saban who was the go-to guy. Saban also asked her to go to bat for Steve Rosen in the midst of his “unpleasantness” with the Justice Department.

To give you an idea of how much of a hasbarist this guy is: he called the protest at the Toronto Film Festival “anti-Semitic” and “Jew hatred.”

Tags: aipac, Aljazeera, haim saban
Posted in Film-TV-Media, Mideast Peace | 27 Comments »

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Friday, October 9th, 2009

You could knock me over with a feather. I just heard this news and it’s a shocker. Barack Obama has indeed won the Nobel Peace Prize. Here is the committee’s statement:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

Now, I respect Pres. Obama. But what has he actually done to deserve it? Yes, his agenda, if he realizes it, would certainly be Nobel-worthy. But he hasn’t come close to realizing any of his foreign policy agenda. He’s made some great speeches no doubt (Cairo for one). But speeches are neither deeds nor concrete achievements.

So I think this award is really a shot in the dark. A big gamble. They’re telling Obama and the world that they have enormous hopes for him. They’re also telling us what deep straits the world is in. From Gaza to Teheran to Kabul to Baghdad, things are a mess. A military attack against Iran hangs like a question mark over the Middle East. The committee is essentially saying that tough times demand risk and this award is a risk. It could be that Obama will merit it over time. It could be that the award will make it that much easier for him to achieve some of his agenda. If so, the Swedes are telling us that’s all to the good.

Lately, Obama has taken hits both at home and abroad. This award is meant as a shot in the arm, a bit of courage for the tough times ahead. He’ll need it.

I hope against hope that this award will encourage the realist camp in dealing with Iran. I hope it will give pause to the Israeli adventurists gunning for a fight with Iran. I do think it will make it that much harder for Obama himself to turn hawkish, as he has intimated he might do if negotiations fail. So maybe there’s some shrewdness to this award as well.

Tags: Barack Obama
Posted in Politics & Society | 35 Comments »

The Forward Attacks Goldstone, Poorly

Friday, October 9th, 2009

Larry Cohler Esses, the Jewish Forward’s able assistant editor, alerted me to a new article by Gal Beckerman on the Goldstone Report. Personally, I have a love/hate relationship with Beckerman’s work. He wrote an awful profile of Haaretz for the Columbia Journalism Review a few years back. But he also wrote a sterling story for the Forward recently about BDS. The article on Goldstone isn’t entirely useless, as it does present an interview with Goldstone. But the Beckerman’s attempts to debunk the Report are simply lame.

The most important issue I take is his claim that Goldstone has a fatal flaw in that he only relied on Palestinian eyewitness testimony. If Beckerman had noted that Israel refused to offer its own IDF eyewitnesses to presents its own side, I would say that the Forward story should be taken seriously. But the reporter didn’t even note Israel’s refusal to participate.

In an attempt to present Israel’s point of view, Beckerman offers non-eyewitness testimony from an IDF officer who works for Dore Gold’s hasbara outfit, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. The Forward neglects to mention the highly partisan nature of JCPA’s work, a fact that is critical in determining the probity of the officer’s contribution.

Lt. Col. Halevi, the officer in question, offers several points of rebuttal to Goldstone, none of which are persuasive. In discussing the al-Samouni massacre, in which the IDF shelled a family home and killed 20, Halevi attempts to justify the incident by examining Islamic Jihad websites which posted material at the time of the attack indicating there was Palestinian resistance in the home’s location. I find the notion that you can pinpoint any specific military activity happening at a specific location based on material posted to a website to be beyond ludicrous. Not to mention that neither Halevi or Beckerman note the nature of what was posted and how it proved what the former claimed.

Further, Halevi compares a list of the names of the murdered al-Samouni clan members with lists of Hamas fighters posted on an unnamed militant website and discovers that several of the dead may have been (if we believe the website) Hamas fighters. There are huge problems with this argument. First, how can we assume that the two lists containing supposedly identical names actually refer to one & the same person? In other words, a more concrete, physical form of identification is required before one can say with certainty that the names refer to the specific fighter in question.

Second, and even more important, so what if the murdered individual was a Hamas fighter? The key point is that the al-Samounis were unarmed (I’m certain that after the attack the IDF would’ve entered the home to determine whether there were arms there and I have not heard any claim that there was). And even if they were armed, how does that justify killing unarmed women and children who were not fighters? If you justify this, you are entering Salah Shehadeh territory (he was a Hamas militant murdered by a 1,000 ton bomb dropped on a residential apartment building where it killed 14 other innocent civilians). Bogie Yaalon, Dan Halutz and Doron Almog are each wanted outside Israel for possible war crimes based on this incident.

Next, Halevi uses the same argument to justify an attack on a mosque at which 350 residents were worshipping. Here is how Beckerman describes the attack:

In a mosque on the outskirts of Jabilyah, somewhere between 200 and 300 men and women are gathered for the evening prayer. An explosion rips the front door off its hinges and flings it all the way across the room. A missile has struck the mosque’s entrance, killing 15 people, some kneeling mid-prayer. A boy sitting by the door has his leg blown off.

Halevi again uses unnamed websites to correlate names of the dead with lists of supposed Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters and finds victims with the same name listed on the websites. This supposedly justifies their murder during the act of prayer.

This reminds me of the murder of the 250 Gaza police cadets at their graduation ceremony, which also has been justified by the hasbarists since these unarmed officers were part of the “Hamas terror apparatus.” I’m sorry, but if we go there then we have to justify Palestinian attacks on Israeli non-military law enforcement. Should we countenance a Palestinian attack on an Israel police cadet graduation ceremony in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? Should we countenance the abduction of Israeli police and their murder because they too are part of the Israeli “apparatus of terror.” That’s a slippery slope I choose not to slide down.

Worshippers at prayer are not legitimate targets, period, whether they are militants or not. And even if they are militants, they are not legitimate targets with 350 civilians praying around them. You can dress up a pig any way you like, but in the end it’s still a pig. And this is a war crime.

I believe Israel should have an opportunity to present its side of the case. It should have presented the IDF units operating near the al-Samouni home and the mosque and even the soldiers who pulled the trigger on the missiles. Maybe they have a legitimate defense or explanation for their action. They should’ve been heard. But Israel refused to provide them. After their refusal, Israel doesn’t get to argue the report is one-sided because it only included eyewitness testimony from one side.

Besides, Goldstone paid for those Israelis who were willing to testify to travel to Geneva where they told their story (Israel refused to allow Goldstone to enter Israel and take testimony from Israelis). He, as opposed to the Israeli government, went to extra mile to be fair. But it has no credibility when it uses the argument of one-sidedness against the South African jurist.

Condescension drips from this passage by a Bar Ilan law professor, who actually attempts to make the claim that the al-Samounis either didn’t see what they saw, or else Hamas forced them to lie about what they saw, or they were already predisposed to hate Israel so much that they made it all up:

“People don’t see what they think they see,” said Bell, the Bar Ilan law professor. “They don’t remember what they think they remember. That’s in the best of circumstances when they are trying to give you accurate information. In this case, what you have are witnesses that, for the most part, are living under a totalitarian government and subject to systematic intimidation. And also, they are living in a long time war zone where they have extreme hostility to the other side.”

Perhaps Professor Bell can explain away the bodies as well. Are they a figment of a hate-filled Gazan imagination?

The crowning insult is Beckerman’s reliance on alleged “research” by a pro-settler extremist blogger, Elder of Ziyon. This is somone obsessed with Muslim-hatred without actually knowing anything about Islam other than what can fit into a thimble (if that). This is someone whose biases are so severe that he doesn’t even realize when he’s lying. He really believes his lies are the truth (at least as he sees it). Just a small fer instance, he’s called me “anti-Israel,” and that’s some of his milder epithets.

What sources does he rely on to buttress his claims? Honest Reporting, a hasbara site founded by the folks who bring you Aish Hatorah and Clarion Fund (producers of those masterworks of cinema, Third Jihad and Obsession); CAMERA, which falsely claimed that Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite and that Canon Naim Ateek called Israelis “Christ-killers;” MEMRI, which either through ignorance or willful deceit mistranslated the script of a Hamas TV show to allegedly show that Palestinian children were being indoctrinated for martyrdom; Little Green Footballs, champion of global anti-jihadism; Debka File, a wannabe Israeli intelligence site which Yediot reporter Ronen Bergman says even Israeli intelligence refuses to believe (remember the NYC dirty bomb hoax?); and Commentary Magazine. These are the sites that receive pride of place in his blog and which he specifically lists as his trusted sources.

Elder of Ziyon has every right to choose whatever sources he wishes in writing his blog. But the Forward, as a serious journalistic enterprise doesn’t have a right to rely on this blogger for bupkes.

Another important fact the Forward report omits is that the only Israeli soldier so far actually punished for infractions during the Gaza war stole a credit card. Sure, the IDF will tell you it has 100 open investigations. This you’re supposed to believe indicates that it takes it’s responsibility seriously to find and punish the guilty. But how much time has passed since the Gaza war? And in all that time only one soldier did anything bad enough to warrant punishment?

[NOTE: Larry Cohler Esses has pointed out my error in the following passage. I missed the quotation in the story. I do find Goldstone's locution here awkward and take him to mean that his Report wasn't meant as a formal legal document that could be used to indict or convict anyone. That would rely on Israel, Palestine or the ICC for adjudication. I still think using this quotation as the headline of the article was unfortunate.] Strangely, the title of the story is Goldstone: ‘If This Was a Court Of Law, There Would Have Been Nothing Proven.’ Yet, nowhere in the story does this quotation appear. As a result you have no idea what it refers to: was it something Goldstone himself said or a claim made against his work? Only Beckerman and perhaps his editor know for sure.

I know the Forward to be a thorough, high quality newspaper and I have written here praising its reporting. But today is not one of those days I’m sorry to say.

Posted in Mideast Peace | 14 Comments »