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 April, 2010

Justice Goldstone Disinvited from Grandson’s Bar Mitzvah by South African Jewry

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

Justice Richard Goldstone, pictured in 2007

Justice Richard Goldstone placed in herem by South African Jewish community (BlatantNews.com via Flickr)


Every so often events like this happen which make me ashamed to be a Jew.  Or I should say, ashamed to share a religion with biryonim (“hooligans”) like the ones I’m about to portray.

Justice Richard Goldstone, author of the UN report on Operation Cast Lead, was expecting to travel back to his home in South African to share in the nachas of his grandson’s bar mitzvah.  Not so fast.  The South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) got wind of this and decided they’d make a huge stink.  They threatened to picket outside the shul DURING the bar mitzvah.  As a result, the machers of the community got together and did one of those great back-room deals.  To preserve shalom bayit they arrived at what they called a “sensible agreement” which disinvited Goldstone from his own grandson’s simcha.

This man who is a child of South African Jewry, whose courage helped transform South Africa’s apartheid system in one of democratic rule, one of the world’s most distinguished international jurists, and a fearless champion of human rights and justice, is persona non grata in his own Jewish community.  They want to diss a Jew who does their community proud by having had an affiliation with it?  What have these people come to?  What sort of Judaism is this?  Who ever said that politics should trump religion?  Do these people even care about religious values?  Do they know what it means to be a Jew?

Of course they don’t have a religion in that sense because their real religion is Israel.  How else to explain that they are willing to cut off their noses to spite their face in this way?  I am sorry but these Jews make a laughingstock of my religion.  If they want to do this fine, but let them call themselves something other than Jews.  Perhaps Judeans would be more appropriate since they’re far more likely to support settlers and their friends in the current government.

This is the voice of a barely concealed hooligan and hypocrite to boot, not a Jewish leader in the true sense of the word:

Avrom Krengel, chairman of the SAZF, said: “We understand there’s a barmitzvah boy involved – we’re very sensitive to the issues; at this stage there’s nothing further to say.” While Krengel said the SAZF had “interacted” on the matter with the chief rabbi, the Beth Din and others, his organisation was “coming across most forcefully because we represent Israel”.

And this, I’m sorry to say is actually the voice of a South African rabbi, Rosh Beth Din Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag:

“I think [the agreement] was quite a sensible thing to avert all this unpleasantness.”

Unpleasantness indeed.  The only thing unpleasant here is the stench rising from this pile of manure which he calls a “sensible agreement.”

I repeat, this is not Judaism.  This is mean-spirited, atavistic tribalism.  And of course it has been blessed not just by South Africa’s chief rabbi, but likely by the Israeli government (or perhaps instigated by it), which has been on the warpath against Goldstone for many months.

When you watch politics as long as I have you understand that there is a point at which your opponent gets a bad case of hubris and overextends himself.  Bush did it.  You know when this happens that pride goes before a fall.  These Jews have done precisely that.  I hope there will be a backlash by reasonable-minded rabbis and Jews throughout the world.  If these Jews want to be a)&holes, gesund a heit.  But not in my name.

To their credit, some of Goldstone’s South African Jewish colleagues have come to his defense:

Mr Justice Dennis Davis said…he assumed that pressure had been brought to bear on the family. “If that assumption is correct, then it is outrageous because it seeks to place a ban on somebody participating in his grandson’s barmitzvah.

“Have we now got to the point that because we don’t like what somebody says or does, we place a ‘cherem’ on them? What right do we have to do that? I would like to add that people who are gleeful about it must remember what Pastor Niemoller said: ‘Who will speak up for them when they are finally excommunicated for some misdemeanor?’”

Retired president of the Constitutional Court, Mr Justice Arthur Chaskalson said it was “disgraceful” to put pressure on a grandfather not to attend his grandson’s barmitzvah.

“If it is correct that this has the blessing of the leadership of the Jewish community in South Africa, it reflects on them rather than on Justice Goldstone. They should hang their heads in shame.”

H/t Didi Remez (font of amazing story tips!).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Israeli MK Demands Publication of Blau Story on Cast Lead Battle Plans

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

One of the most contentious aspects of the Kamm-Blau case, which goes to the heart of why it is so dangerous for the IDF, is the article Blau wrote about the army’s battle plans for Operation Cast Lead. It passed the military censor and Haaretz planned to print it one week before the war/massacre began. The newspaper prepared the article, but then the censor had a change of heart, demanding that Haaretz withdraw the already printed edition. It did so.

Several days ago Israeli journalist Shraga Elam suggested that activists involved with this case should now demand publication of the offending article. I didn’t see any way Haaretz would jeopardize its tenuous legal situation by entertaining such a notion. While I put out feelers to Israelis to see if there might be a copy of the article lurking somewhere I got no takers.

Now, Jonathan Cook has added a new dimension to this story: an Israeli Palestinian MK has made such a demand:

Haneen Zoubi, an MP who previously headed an Israeli media-monitoring organisation, said it was “outrageous” that the suppressed report was still secret so long after the Gaza attack. She is to table a parliamentary question to Ehud Barak, the defence minister, today demanding to know why the army suppressed the article and what is preventing its publication now. Mr Barak must respond within 21 days.

She said publication of the article was important both because Israel had been widely criticised for killing many hundreds of civilians in its three-week assault on Gaza, and because subsequent reports suggested that Israeli commanders sought legal advice months before the operation to manipulate the accepted definitions of international law to make it easier to target civilians.“There must be at least a strong suspicion that Mr Blau’s article contains vital information, based on military documentation, warning of Israeli army intentions to commit war crimes,” she said in an interview.

“If so, then there is a public duty on Haaretz to publish the article. If not, then there is no reason for the minister to prevent publication after all this time.”

I wouldn’t have phrased it that way.  What Blau’s report might indicate is that the ferocity and indiscriminateness that were advocated in the war plans would convey a likelihood that war crimes could have occurred.

Cook also quotes a Tel Aviv university professor with a convincing argument about what especially frightened and provoked the IDF and Shin Bet about Blau’s unpublished manuscipt:

Amal Jamal, a professor at Tel Aviv University who teaches a media course to professional journalists, said he was concerned with the timing of the Shin Bet’s campaign against Mr Blau. He observed that they began interviewing the reporter about his sources and documents last summer as publication neared of the Goldstone report, commissioned by the United Nations and which embarrassed Israel by alleging it had perpetrated war crimes in Gaza.

“The goal in this case appears to be not only to intimidate journalists but also to delegitimise certain kinds of investigations concerning security issues, given the new climate of sensitivity in Israel following the Goldstone report.”

Given the massive investment of the government in demonizing both the Report and its author it would make perfect sense for officials to see Blau and by extension Kamm as leading aiders and abetters of the anti-Israel efforts of the UN and human rights campaigners throughout the world seeking accountability for IDF actions in Gaza. This is yet further proof that we must mount a redoubled defense of Kamm, Blau and Goldstone and the values for which they stand.  We need accountability and transparency in dealing with the aftermath of Cast Lead, not bellicosity, chest-thumping and threats (like the Shin Bet one to kidnap Blau and forcibly return him to Israel).

Cook also quotes Shraga discussing a so-called “third phase” of the Gaza operation which is rarely openly discussed by which the IDF would have occupied Gaza, expelled Hamas and organized mass expulsions of “undesirables” (some of this I have heard and some is based on Shraga’s comments).  This, if true, certainly would’ve taken the IDF into war crimes territory.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Kamm-Blau Affair on Russia Today TV News

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010


I was interviewed for a segment on Russia Today TV about the Anat Kamm-Uri Blau affair.  This is a short version of a long story which ran on TV inside Russia.  My full interview is available in three segments here.

One of the things that’s interesting about the interviews is that the father of one of the Palestinians assassinated during Twin Towers says that 500 soldiers participated in the operation.  He notes that you don’t come to arrest someone with 500 soldiers.  Maan News Agency’s reporting notes that 30 military vehicles were involved.  An Israeli friends says this was a battalion-size undertaking.  He also emphasizes that no IDF action that is purely meant to detain someone involves something on this scale.  This would reinforce Blau’s claim that this was a targeted killing and not what the IDF and Attorney General have claimed.

I will be writing a more detailed post about this later today.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

IDF to Barenboim: No to Gaza Concert

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010
violinist from west eastern diwan

Young musician from West Eastern Diwan Orchestra rehearsing on Ramallah rooftop (New Statesman)

If there’s a lyric to accompany this post it would be Elvis Costello’s What’s So Funny About Peace Love and Understanding? Except we’d have to adapt it a bit to today’s news: “what’s so dangerous about a classical music concert in Gaza?”  Famed conductor and co-founder of the East-Western Diwan Orchestra, Daniel Barenboim asked the Israeli government for permission to bring his young musicians to Gaza for a concert.

The answer: No.  Not until Gilad Shalit is free.  As if those Gazans who would enjoy this concert were personally responsible for capturing Shalit and holding him for three years.  International law prohibits collective punishment and that’s what this is: blaming an entire population for the acts of individuals within it.

So in case you didn’t already know: the IDF already bans dangerous products like pasta and musical instruments from entering Gaza; to that now add classical music.  And Daniel Barenboim is a dangerous man, the equivalent of 20 Qassam rocket launchers at least.

But let’s be clear.  Barenboim was tacitly criticizing the Gaza siege and Israel knew this.  It had to make a calculated determination whether it could risk international opprobrium in rejecting Barenboim’s request in order to uphold the impermeability of the siege.  It favored the latter.  Apparently, the Israeli world view is that Gazans can never suffer enough pain.  And they wonder why those who captured Shalit did so in the first place.

H/t Ofer Neiman.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Former Israeli Attorney General Backs IDF: Targeted Killings Were Lawfu

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010
menachem mazuz

Former attorney general Menachem Mazuz, turning bilge into wine (Daniel Bar-On / BauBau)

In Operation Twin Towers, the Shin Bet directed the IDF to arrest several wanted Palestinians in Jenin.  Gen. Yair Naveh gave his men the orders that they could shoot to kill if necessary (even if civilians would be harmed) despite the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court had specifically excluded such targeted killings.  The Palestinians ended up dead.  The IDF lied and said they’d resisted arrest, when they hadn’t.  This is the explosive story that Uri Blau published in Haaretz and which led to his self-imposed exile in London.

But now we have it from an unimpeachable source that all was kosher. General Naveh is free and clear and the IDF is back to being the most moral army in the world.  Our source is none other than former Israeli attorney general Menahem Mazuz, who hastens to remind the Israeli public that he wrote a letter clearing Naveh from guilt fifteen months ago after human rights lawyers Michael Sfard and Avigdor Feldman (now representing Anat Kamm), on the strength of Blau’s report, filed a legal complaint against the IDF for the episode:

In their letter to Mazuz, the attorneys charged that Blau’s article indicated that the state had violated the ruling in connection with several killings of terrorists…Mazuz wrote back on January 7, 2009, and turned down the attorneys’ request for an investigation.

Regarding the killing of Malaisha, Mazuz wrote, “The IDF operation met all the conditions laid down in the Bagatz ruling regarding ‘targeted assassinations.’ The attack took place after the possibility of arresting the fugitives was ruled out as being impossible to achieve under the circumstances and after it was made clear to the soldiers that arrest was the first preference.

“The attack was aimed at senior and extremely dangerous terrorists, who were involved in preparations to carry out dangerous terror attacks, and regarding whom the security system had reliable and precise information … It was carried out in awareness of the duty to avoid harming innocents and reduce the danger to them, and after implementing the principle of proportionality.”

Mazuz added that “the legal aspects of the operation were examined at each one of the planning stages and there is no basis to the charge that the IDF ‘ignored’ the High Court’s instructions regarding targeted assassination operations. On the contrary, the operational officers in the general staff, who had close legal consultation, were aware of the High Court instructions and stressed and carried them out in all stages of the planning and the approval of the operation.”

And how does Mazuz know this?  He undoubtedly has it on good authority from the IDF’s prosecutor general, Avichai Mandelblit, who would not tell a lie.  This is the same Mandelblit who, when faced with international outcry concerning possible Israeli war crimes during the Gaza massacre, couldn’t seem to find a single Israeli soldier who did a thing wrong–except one poor schlub who stole a credit card from a Gaza home.  This guy they threw the book at.

If words could turn dreck to gold, then Mazuz would be rich.  Did you note the phrase “principle of proportionality?”  What does it mean when three wanted men end up dead and the IDF lies by saying they were armed and resisted arrest?  I guess it depends on how you define proportionality.  If you’re a Shin Bet director or Israeli general it’s ‘proportional’ to execute a wanted man though this might not be the standards of the Supreme Court or the rest of the world.

The IDF couldn’t even acknowledge they’d disciplined two officers for misuse of white phosphorus during the war.  After Haaretz reported they’d been reprimanded, the IDF hastened to deny the charge.

All this reminds me of the four monkeys: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, do no evil.  With the exception that the IDF actually did evil and these jokers are doing their level best to turn pork into what Israelis euphemistically call “white meat.”  I guess if Jesus could turn loaves into fishes then why shouldn’t an Israeli bureaucrat be able to turn an execution into a righteous deed?

The Kamm-Blau affair represents the nadir of the Israeli “democratic” system at work.  It’s close to a perfect storm of incompetence, foolishness, grandiosity, pique and Chelmishness.  No one on the government side comes out looking good including the IDF, Shin Bet, police and judiciary.  The press looks like a feeble toothless wonder.  Only the principals, Kamm and Blau come out of this with their reputations reasonably intact (except if you ask rabid rightists like those from Im Tirtzu or those who equated Kamm’s crime with the Holocaust on Yom HaShoah).  It has been a very dark month for Israeli institutions associated with this affair.  They have not performed well.

But will anyone learn from their lesson?  Ah, that is the job of this blog.  If they don’t we will try to remind them that there is a moral to the story that must be learned.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Roger Cohen: If Russians and Poles Can Make Peace, So Can Israelis and Palestinians

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

They announced the Pulitzer Prize winners yesterday and someone who truly deserved one was not among the winners: Roger Cohen.  His brave reporting in June from the streets of Teheran after the allegedly fraudulent presidential election was absolutely riveting.  You felt like you were there at a crucial moment of Middle Eastern history.  And Cohen’s humanity and decency shone through all the violence and lies of the Iranian authorities.

Cohen proved once again with today’s column about the Polish airliner tragedy at Katyn, why he deserved that Pulitzer.  He writes movingly of the difficulty of reconciliation between Poles and Russians considering the suffering inflicted on the former by the latter in places like the Katyn Forest, where Stalin murdered 20,000 of the cream of the Polish nobility and armed forces.  Out of the flames of this plane crash, comes the certainty that if two bitterly opposed peoples like Poles and Russians can find common ground, then there is no such hatred that cannot be soothed:

Watching him [Vladimir Putin] beside Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, I thought of François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl hand-in-hand at Verdun in 1984: of such solemn moments of reconciliation has the miracle of a Europe whole and free been built…

I thought even of Willy Brandt on his knees in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1970, a turning point on the road to a German-Polish reconciliation more miraculous in its way even than the dawning of the post-war German-French alliance. And now perhaps comes the most wondrous rapprochement, the Polish-Russian.

96 lost souls would be dishonored if Polish and Russian leaders do not make of this tragedy a solemn bond. As Tusk told Putin, “A word of truth can mobilize two peoples looking for the road to reconciliation. Are we capable of transforming a lie into reconciliation? We must believe we can.”

Poland should shame every nation that believes peace and reconciliation are impossible, every state that believes the sacrifice of new generations is needed to avenge the grievances of history. The thing about competitive victimhood, a favorite Middle Eastern pastime, is that it condemns the children of today to join the long list of the dead.

So do not tell me that cruel history cannot be overcome. Do not tell me that Israelis and Palestinians can never make peace. Do not tell me that the people in the streets of Bangkok and Bishkek and Tehran dream in vain of freedom and democracy. Do not tell me that lies can stand forever.

Ask the Poles. They know.

Amen.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Latest Shin Bet Outrage: Threatening Eichmann-like Abduction of Blau

Monday, April 12th, 2010
yuval diskin

Yuval Diskin: will kidnap Blau to bring him to justice

Each day brings a new outrage in the Kamm-Blau case riveting Israel and much of the world.  The National reports that the Shin Bet said it would “take the gloves off” in dealing with self-exiled Haaretz reporter Uri Blau and even consider kidnapping him to forcibly return him to Israel.  Someone ought to tell this numbskull that the Shin Bet isn’t allowed to kidnap Israeli citizens on foreign soil.  And considering the hot water into which the Mossad has fallen in England these days, it’s hardly likely they’d like to mount a kidnapping operation in London.

It’s true that they did kidnap Adoph Eichmann in Argentina and Mordechai Vanunu in Rome (they would’ve kidnpapped him in London but if would’ve meant offending Margaret Thatcher), but the acts of which they were charged were of a considerably different level of magnitude.  Though I realize that for a Shin Betnik, used to always getting his man, such comparisons are meaningless.

The Shabak also said they would ask Britain to extradite him.  I have an excellent idea, why doesn’t Britain offer to trade the Mossad agents who used fraudulent British passports in assassinating Mahmoud al-Mabouh in Dubai in exchange for Blau; or better yet, exchange a wanted Israeli general for Blau?

If I were David Milliband, Britain’s foreign minister I’d let the Israeli government know in no uncertain terms that such an act, were one even considered let alone attempted, would meet with a crushingly hostile response from Her Majesty’s government.

But seriously, this is getting ridiculous.  What does the Shin Bet take Britain and the rest of the world for?  Their offshore subsidiary?  I just hope that Amos Schocken has hired a very good security agency to guard Uri.  Maybe even a few ex-Mossad or CIA agents whose loyalty can be vouched for.

We do have to take all this with a grain of salt since it was published in the right wing Maariv which has been known to publish utter Likudist rubbish.  On the other hand, given the Israeli security agency’s penchant for skullduggery, we shouldn’t rule out even the most outrageous Israeli behavior.

We should ask ourselves why the Shin Bet has practically put a price on Blau’s head.  Really, this episode is nothing out of the ordinary for Israel.  As numerous reports in the Israel press have pointed out, scores of IDF officers, secret agents and policitians have leaked top secret material to reporters before.  Even Uri Blau published an IDF document given to him by another IDF soldier.  When discovered her punished was 35 days confinement to base.

What makes this case different from all other previous Israeli leak cases?  As several Israel bloggers have provocatively pointed out (among them Roy Arad here)–Uri Blau is really in a category all his own when it comes to Israeli investigative reporters.  He goes where other reporters fear to tread.  He gets the stories no one else can.  He embarrasses the high and mighty and does so with astonishing regularity.  In short, the man has a target painted on his back as far as the Israeli military-intelligence elite is concerned.

Let’s review some of the stories he’s published just in the past year: he revealed the embarrassing, racist, genocidal IDF T-shirts worn by veterans of Operation Cast Lead (Huffington Post rejected without explanation my own submission of this story); he reported that Gaby Ashkenazi and Ehud Barak engaged in numerous business deals before they returned to government and the IDF respectively and neither reported the transactions as required; he wrote that after Barak became defense minister and claimed his personal company would become inactive, nearly $2-million poured into it and the latter refused to explain where the money came from or what the company did to earn it; Blau exposed a similar mysterious consulting business run by Avigdor Lieberman’s daughter which received millions of shekels from overseas sources (Israeli police have questioned Lieberman multiple times and are rumored to be preparing an indictment).

Any number of powerful Israelis want Uri Blau dead or alive.  And beyond prosecuting him, those he has angered want to so tarnish his repuation that no future source could ever trust him.  Imagine if Nixon went after Woodward and Bernstein and threw the entire weight of the government against them to destroy them and their journalistic reputation.  Powerful Israelis want Blau (in the coinage of the old Hollywood mogul’s threat) “never to work in this town again.”

And not just those in the political/military/intelligence establishment hate Blau.  The story of this case is also the story of the utter failure of the Israeli press to do its job.  The cowardice, the apathy, the laziness, the jealousy, the sycophancy.  Yes, some Israeli friends have pointed out to me that an Israeli paper risks far more than an American if it defies a censor of the Shin Bet.  In fact, it may risk all as Hadashot did in the Kav 300 episode.

But what they need to remember is that guarantees of a free press didn’t come naturally in this country either.  If you don’t remember your American history, look up John Peter Zenger.  There’s a publisher who Israeli media moguls ought to study.  Any Israeli newspaper on its own could not be expected to do the impossible.  But a united press could, and that’s what’s utterly lacking in Israel.

Uri Blau’s fellow newspapermen hate him, as this Haaretz op-ed by human rights lawyer Yuval Elbashan notes, because he does the kind of job they all should be doing but aren’t:

They were supposed to be the vanguard that protects Haaretz reporter Uri Blau on his journalistic mission. They were supposed to be at the forefront of the army protecting the freedom of expression, which also includes the journalistic liberty to possess leaked documents, whatever their origin.

As such, they were supposed to be the first to condemn the heavy-handed behavior of the Israeli security services…Their experience should have taught them that a journalist’s role is…to protect the fundamental values of the journalistic method and process.

But the leading military “reporters” and “analysts” in Israel chose not to carry out their duty. Even worse, not only did they fail to defend Blau, they opted to side with the assault on their colleague…

An outsider scrutinizing their conduct in this affair will not be able to avoid feeling shame. Of all people, they are the ones who took on the role of spokesmen for the establishment, as if they were still conscripts. With enthusiasm they reiterated the claim that the material held by Blau has the potential to cause harm…And they are the ones who volunteered the claim that the quantity of documents held by Blau is what makes him qualitatively different from them and their documents, and hence justifies his persecution.

The writer further notes that the IDF didn’t even have to break a sweat in laying out their talking points for the media because their dutiful stenographers, the military correspondents, did it for them:

…The Israel Defense Forces spokesmen and the media advisers of the premier, ministers and senior military commanders have remained virtually silent, and justifiably so. The military “reporters” did the talking in their stead, as if they were trying to show their loyalty to the system as the lowliest of its servants.

And here is the money quote which clearly portrays the difference between the way Blau saw his work as a journalist and the way they see theirs.  And this goes to why they see him as such a threat:

…The way he perceived his work as an investigative reporter, which included writing about the defense establishment, is what is threatening them. Unlike many of these people calling themselves military analysts or correspondents, Blau was never among those who read the official beeper messages the IDF sends out to reporters. The fact is that most of his colleagues get a beeper message, call up one or two officers – the source of the original message – to verify its accuracy, and immediately run off to report the message.

Moreover, part of the routine of that elite group of military correspondents includes coordinated visits to our forces – geared up in flak jackets, eyes bright. From what they describe as “the field,” they parrot what the establishment was all too glad to make known: a planned operation, an advanced weapons system, the way the forces are advancing. That kind of journalism is more like serving as a spokesman than working as a reporter.

Even from his days at Jerusalem weekly Kol Ha’ir…Blau was different. He attacked the defense establishment, didn’t get chummy with its leaders (despite the temptation to have the sort of leaks that no one would dare investigate), tried to pry into its every dark corner and accepted nothing as self-evident. That is how he made major discoveries, but that also appears to be how he became an enemy of the establishment. Not the defense establishment (which would be understandable and reasonable in a democratic system of checks and balances), but the journalistic establishment.

In this sense the Blau affair is indeed a “glaring warning sign”…not because of the work he did but because of the work that others didn’t do, the ones who still dare to call themselves journalists.

Roy Arad has also written convincingly of the utter dysfunction of the Israeli press as a whole in the face of this threat:

Why aren’t Israeli journalists screaming bloody murder that the normal process in democratic countries of leaking a document to the press has been turned in Israel into betrayal of one’s country and grave espionage?  Why is there no unified voice taking Israel’s secret police to task?   Why are Israeli journalists so lacking in a sense of collegiality and solidarity with one of their own?  Has newspaper competition and the bad blood between different papers (especially the deep detestation between Haaretz and Maariv) become more important than freedom of the press overall?  Wouldn’t it be more fitting for the entire Israeli press corps to unite to protect itself in the face of this assault by the secret police on faltering Israeli democracy?  The way in which some journalists have reacted to this case has been a black mark on the profession.

In the current case, Yuval Diskin, the Shin Bet director recently reappointed by Barak to his job, may be doing the bidding of his boss (or as Arad said, “Diskin is Barak’s poodle”) in pursuing Blau with a vengeance.  Arad notes that Diskin’s term was extended for a fifth year just around the time the Kamm case broke.  And in case anyone doubts this as a motive, during the Pentagon Papers case Attorney General John Mitchell offered the FBI director’s job to the judge in the case if he “took care” of Daniel Ellsberg.  The Jerusalem Post reports today that Ashkenazi was especially angered by Blau’s reports on illegal IDF targeted killings and wanted the reporter targeted.

To me, the current Kamm-Blau case is “overdetermined” to use Freudian terms.  The wrath of the authorities simply doesn’t fit the crime.  That’s why many Israelis who’ve confided in me over the past month about this mysterious affair have said there must be a bigger hidden narrative.  I agree with them.  Personally, I think it’s very possible that the hidden hand may be that of Barak or someone doing his bidding.  After all, Ehud Olmert was brought down and now faces trial on numerous similar counts that involved even less money than the $6.5-million shekels that Blau discovered in the Barak story.

H/t Rupa Shah.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Kamm Leaked Secret IDF Documents to Expose ‘War Crimes’

Monday, April 12th, 2010
anat kamm

Anat Kamm: Leaked army documents to expose Israeli war crimes (Chen Galili/AFP-Getty)

Finally, we have a evidence supporting Anat Kamm’s motives in leaking hundreds of secret IDF documents to the Israeli press.  Until now, we’ve been forced to speculate on those motives and the theories have been all over the place.  But Haaretz, which appealed to the court to release police files related to the case, reports that her own testimony to the Israeli police explains her motivation:

Classified documents reveal that the Israel Defense Forces had committed war crimes in the West Bank, Anat Kam, the former soldier indicted for espionage over an alleged theft of top secret material, told the court earlier in the year, according to police documents released allowed for publication Monday at the request of Haaretz.

In the newly released material documenting court hearings surrounding Kam’s arrest, the journalist and former IDF soldier said that the motivation behind her removal of sensitive military material was to expose “certain aspects of the IDF’s conduct in the West Bank that I thought were of interest to the public.”

Kam added that her thinking behind taking the top secret papers was to ensure that “if and when the war crime the IDF was and is committing in the West Bank would be investigated, then I would have evidence to present.”

Kam said that she didn’t think that transferring the documents would endanger the country, as she did not think “the journalist would focus on the details of the military actions, but rather on the principles and the policies that were behind the the top officers’ decisions.”

Ynetnews added this interesting quotation from her testimony:

“I couldn’t make a big enough difference during my service. I thought exposing (procedures) would bring about a change… When I was burning the CDs I kept thinking that history tends to forgive people who expose war crimes.”

Kam had also contemplated any punishment that might be meted out to her and the legacy that she might leave for Israeli democracy:

Referring to the possibility that she would be penalized for the theft, Kam said that when she “burned the material [onto a CD] I thought that in the test of history, people who warned of war crimes were forgiven.”

“I didn’t have the chance to change some of the things that I found it important to change during my military service, and I thought that by exposing these [materials] I would make a change,” the former soldier said, adding that it was for those reasons that “it was important for me to bring the IDF’s policy to public knowledge.”

While I find these statements very powerful and convincing, I find it difficult to reconcile them with statements that she herself made here on this blog (I believe, though under a pseudonym) and to others in which she demeaned their own motives in publicizing her case.  At best, I think this was a woman whose motives were divided at least after her exposure.  But I’m prepared wholly to support her and put by the wayside any other theory I may’ve published before about other motivations I thought she might have.

Anat Kamm is a whistleblower in the best tradition of the term.  She is an Israeli patriot, an Israeli version of Daniel Ellsberg.  She did the right thing in a nation where others cover their tushes or ignore sins that lie right before their eyes.

Every Israeli and anyone concerned about Israeli democracy owes it to Anat Kamm to do whatever they can to support her.  I call on bloggers, journalists, academics, human rights activists to join together in a campaign to win her freedom and exoneration.  I will do whatever I can to create and support such activism.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE