Related articles by Zemanta

• David Shulman on Sheikh Jarrah, Gaza and in the Israeli Peace Movement in the NYRB (josephdana.com)

Related posts:

1. Battle of Sheikh Jarrah The settlers rage not just in Yasuf, where they burned...
2. Settler Knesset Member Threatens Sedition Trial Against TV Satirists I recently wrote a post about a skit on...
3. Weissglas, Sharon’s Pro-Settler Warrior: ‘Every Single Settler Will Have to Go’ Frankly, I don’t know what to make of this story. ...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

IDF Lt. Col. and Israeli ambassador Michael Oren unnerved by heckling at UC Irvine (Orange Country Register)

Israeli ambassador Michael Oren drew a standing-room only crowd at a talk he delivered at U.C. Irvine earlier today.  But it wasn’t the type of warm reception he’d hoped for, as a considerable portion of the audience reminded him of his role as a PR flack for the Gaza war in his role as an IDF senior officer and neocon analyst funded by Shelley Adelson Shalem Center.  He was roundly booed and interrupted with cries of “murderer” as he attempted to complete his speech.  The only reason he did was that the protestors left the hall to continue their protest outside.

Desperate times require desperate measures.  And if this is what it takes to remind the world that Israel’s war machine continues its Occupation, and its massacre in Gaza continues to go uninvestigated internally or externally, then so be it.  Cries of “murderer” are certainly unwarranted.  I’d have been happy enough just to disrupt the proceedings without the histrionics.  But then again, I’m not Palestinian and have not known the suffering of Gaza or Lebanon.

This is entirely justified guerilla political action.  I’m sorry but just because Michael Oren wants to attain respectability for Israel by associating himself with a prestigious U.S. university doesn’t mean that his audience needs to sit respectfully and listen to the pap he delivers.

Let every Israeli diplomat and general know that they face the prospect of such frosty receptions wherever they speak in this country, unless it’s an ADL, Aipac, or Israel Bonds dinner.

Related posts:

1. Shalem Center’s Michael Oren Likely Bibi’s New Ambassador to U.S. Thanks to a reader who points out that Maariv is...
2. Oren Smears J Street–Again Israeli ambassador Michael Oren has had an awkward relationship with...
3. Obama Administration Hangs Rosenthal Out to Dry for Criticism of Oren I find myself deeply disturbed by the Obama administration’s abandoning...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Lieberman, democrat in wolf's clothing

I wanted to be conservative in my choice of blog title, but Dimi Reider really said it as it should be: Netanyahu invites the refugees to vote.  Here is how Ynetnews portrays the story:

PM: We’ll let Israelis vote abroad

Netanyahu tells Likud faction his government plans to submit bill allowing every Israeli citizen to vote for Knesset from anywhere worldwide. ‘It will contribute to the connection and to Israel’s strength,’ he says.

As Dimi correctly notes, this is another subterfuge to reinforce the strength of the Israeli Jewish vote in the demographic battle with the Israeli Palestinian minority. It could also impact a decision to incorporate large portions of occupied territory with Palestinian population into Israel proper (like the area between the Wall and the Green Line.  Avigdor Lieberman, whose idea this is, has also proposed ridding Israel of some of its Arab minority by declaring some of their territory de facto part of a new Palestinian state, while granting Israel the right to annex large portions of the Territories that contain settlers.  This is yet another example of how the Kahanist right has inserted its far-right ideology into the political mainstream.  I call it “transfer-lite.”  The beauty of the voting proposal is Yvette can characterize it as a democratic reform that gives all Israeli citizens the right to a voice in their country’s affairs.  It’s quite a coup for those who really are anything but democrats.

But as Reider points out, they are playing with fire.  Because just as Israeli “refugees” may be allowed to vote in domestic elections, so too will Israeli Palestinian refugees apply for the same privileges.  The fact that they were expelled from Israel and so denied their right to Israeli citizenship, which was granted to all their remaining fellow Israeli Palestinians, will likely not hold up in a legal setting.  If the Israeli Supreme Court denies these individuals citizenship, then surely an International Court will find against Israel.  Then the Palestinian refugees will assert their legitimate right.

Taken to its most extreme, the coalition could propose that even Diaspora Jews should take Israeli citizenship and vote in elections.  Maybe they can even expedite it by having online applications: become an Israeli citizen from the comfort of your own home!

Similarly, settler extremists who are trying to render East Jerusalem Arab-rein by expropriating Arab property with the claim that it once belonged to Jews, are playing with fire.  It will only be a very short matter of time before Palestinian refugee families expelled from their homes in Katamon, Rehavya, and Talpiot will lodge claims in Israeli or international courts for recognition of their deeds.  What will the radical rightists do then?  Will they argue that Jewish deeds are valid while Arab deeds aren’t?  Well, if they had their druthers they’d merely say that Jews have such rights while Palestinians don’t.  That anti-democratic approach might play well in their circles and even among the majority of Israelis, but it won’t play in Peoria, that is the rest of the world.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sheikh Jarrah: Going Mainstream (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
• Ir Amim: Why are Israelis Demonstrating in Sheikh Jarrah? (huffingtonpost.com)

Related posts:

1. Ben Zion Netanyahu: Israeli Arab Goal ‘To Exterminate Us’ This is the second installment of Ben Zion Netanyahu’s Maariv...
2. In the Israeli Elections It’s…Livni (or is it Netanyahu)? With 98% of the vote counted it appears that the...
3. Barghouti Ousts Old Guard in Fatah Leadership Vote Marwan Barghouti and his fellow Young Guard have beaten the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I recently did an interview with Bill Alford of Seattle’s Moral Politics community-access TV program. We spoke about the issues surrounding the Naveed Haq trial and his recent conviction for first degree murder in the 2006 attack on the Seattle Jewish federation, which left one employee dead and five seriously injured.

We grappled with whether Haq’s sentence was just in a moral and religious sense and the overall theme of Muslim-Jewish tension rooted in the intractable Israeli-Arab conflict.

I wanted to warn that I made an error during the interview in suggesting that in Haq’s first trial, which ended in a hung jury, he was charged with second degree murder. A local journalist reports to me that he was charged with first degree murder in both cases.

It’s a 30 minute interview. I hope you’ll watch it and suggest to others interested in Muslim-Jewish relations that they watch it too.

Related posts:

1. Seattle TV Interview on Danger of Iran Attack I was interviewed recently by Bill Alford for a 30-minute...
2. Seattle Jewish Federation Plans Anti-Iran Conference Through a well-informed source, I have become aware that the...
3. Naveed Haq Found Guilty A Seattle jury, deliberating for two and one-half days, found...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

An Education Ministry decision to bar a Kfar Sava school from teaching sexually explicit poetry by Israeli writer Yona Wallach shows that Israel is becoming a mini-Iran, Israeli author Yoram Kaniuk said over the weekend.

After receiving complaints from parents of students in Edna Resh’s literature class at Rabin High School in Kfar Sava, Shlomo Hertzig, the ministry’s supervisor of literature education, ordered the school and Resh to stop teaching Wallach’s sexually explicit poems, Yedioth Ahronoth reported last week.

The title of the poem alone is delightfully subversive in Hebrew: Atah haverah sheli (“You are my girlfriend”).  Note that the pronoun is masculine, which makes the speaker gay.  The economy of the Hebrew is impossible to translate into English.  You can see why government bureaucrats cringe.  We can’t have any of this nonsense in our classroom says Likud minister, homophobe and prude, Gideon Saar.

Let’s start the ball rolling with Yoram Kaniuk, who calls an Ayatollah an Ayatollah:

“We are gradually becoming a mini-Iran,” said Kaniuk. “Everyone talks about the threat of Iran’s bombs and missiles, but they forget that the worst thing is this lousy religion, which is flourishing nowadays. They’re taking over our lives. It’s terrible what they’ve done to the Jewish religion. Yona Wallach is a terrific poet.”

But the prize for funniest rejoinder to this priggishness goes to Meir Wieseltier:

“Maybe [Hertzig] thinks there’s no need to teach poems, just to teach how to raise the flag during roll call,” said Wieseltier. “The flag is raised during roll call with a rope, not a poem.”

Related posts:

1. ‘With An Iron Pen’: Collection of Israeli Anti-Occupation Poetry Clare Kinberg, editor of Bridges: A Jewish Feminist Journal,...
2. With an Iron Pen: 20 Years of Hebrew Protest Poetry I’ve written my first piece for Tikkun Magazine.  I figured...
3. Israeli College Cancels Academic Offering Due to Too Many Arab Enrollees During the recent controversy regarding Neve Gordon’s L.A. Times op-ed...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Elie Wiesel and usual pro-Israel suspects, Dershowitz and Jon Voight (partially obscured in background) protest Ahmadinejad UN speech (AP)

Elie Wiesel’s much ballyhooed full page N.Y. Times ad came out today. It offers strong support for the Iranian reform movement and denounces the clerical regime. The only purely political stance it advocates is sanctions. There is no mention of force. As close as the statement gets is:

Concrete measures much be taken to protect this new nation of dissidents so that their sacrifice is not…in vain.

This statement echoes the current Israeli policy which advocates punishing sanctions to be followed, when they fail, presumably by calls for a military attack. I presume that in a few months we’ll see another ad by Wiesel with those Nobel laureates foolish enough to sell the spirit of their medal for a mess of porridge and a few bunker bombs.

There is one strange notion in the text of this ad. It calls on Presidents Obama, Sarkozy, Medvedev, and Gordon Brown and Chancellor Merkel to “put an end to this outrage.” How are they supposed to do this? And why would Wiesel presume that it would be a good thing for them to do so? This statement could easily be construed as an incipient call for intervention in Iran’s internal afffairs. Certainly, the next step would be an ad with such a call for regime change or military attack.

Another element in the rhetoric to which I object: there’s a distinct notion of western noblesse oblige about the whole thing.  Iran’s regime has “now attained new levels of horrror” with “thousands arrested…tortured, raped, and killed, many by hanging.”  Sounds pretty bad doesn’t it?  Till you stop to think, isn’t there another country in the region which kills on a far larger scale and with far more technological dexterity?  One that is currently under consideration by the UN for a war crimes referral to the International Criminal Court.  Hmmm, who could that be?  And could it be an accident that Elie Wiesel, friend of Dershowitz and Hagee, might have an ulterior motive in pointing to Iran as the supreme menace to world peace?

To be clear, this post is not a defense of Iran’s current regime.  Anyone who reads this blog knows that it is not my purpose.

A few interesting notes about the signatories and those who are missing. First, almost all signers are scientists and I’m not sure why we should trust a scientist speaking about Iranian political affairs any more than Iran analysts, academics and Iranian activists, almost all of whom speak of sanctions as counter-productive. Second, Desmond Tutu signed an earlier Wiesel ad which did not call for sanctions. He is missing from this ad. Also missing are Israel’s latest laureate, Ada Yonath, who pointedly attacked the Israeli Occupation the very day she won her award. It must’ve taken some courage for her to resist the urge to sign. Predictably among the signers is perhaps the most extreme right-winger among them, Orthodox pro-settler extremist, Robert Aumann. Other than Betty Williams, Jody Williams and Wole Soyinka, there are no Peace or Literature laureates at all. This includes Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama (missing). Missing also is the Iranian Peace Prize laureate, Shirin Abadi.  Missing also is Alan Dershowitz, who never won a Nobel. Maybe they’ll have to create a new category for pro-Israel propagandist.

Interestingly, Wiesel also spearheaded an earlier letter after the June Iranian elections that was formulated to support Ebadi.  That letter too contained 44 signatories.  But not the same 44.  In fact, 15 of the original signers are missing in the current ad, which leads me to believe that most, if not all, decided not the join this effort because they disagreed with it.

M.J. Rosenberg reports at Huffington Post that the Senate approved an Aipac-inspired Iran sanctions bill with only FIVE MINUTES of debate and only three senators on the floor!  How’s that for democracy?

Related posts:

1. IDF Kidnaps U.S. Citizens, Nobel Laureate in Gaza Waters Let anyone who claims there is no difference between a...
2. Former U.S. Congresswoman, Nobel Laureate Imprisoned by Israel The Israeli government is attempting to compel the 23 abducted...
3. J Street Supports Iran Sanctions This will be one of those posts I write periodically...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Anyone who knows much about Israeli politics knows the kind of white-hot far-right anger displayed in this astonishing video. But it’s good to have one’s sense of outrage refreshed every so often to see such Israeli fascism in full eruption.

A word of context: make no mistake, this is not the view of the majority of Israelis, not nearly. But it is the view of enough that it is deeply frightening and poses a real danger for Israeli democracy. These are the Jack Teitels of Israel and seeing them on video reminds us of the real violence of which they are capable. You’ll also learn some choice tidbits of Hebrew curses and scatology from the ranters.

These charming gentlemen are harrassing one of the weekly Friday demonstrations by Israeli peace activists in Sheikh Jarrah against the evictions of long-time Arab residents of that neighborhood from their homes.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Let’s Not Forget About the Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah (josephdana.com)

Related posts:

1. UK Christian Zionists: Hitler ‘Hearts’ Sizer CORRECTION: Joseph Weissman and his right-wing blogger choir note that...
2. If Bibi Wants to Ban Foreign Funding for Israeli NGOs, Start With Moskowitz’s $100-million One of my readers just conveyed to me a brilliant...
3. Netanyahu Proposes Israeli Expatriates Vote I wanted to be conservative in my choice of blog...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

He quotes a journalist academic who characterizes the issue entirely correctly:

Alex Jones, director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The Times, took a different view. “The appearance of a conflict of interest is often as important or more important than a real conflict of interest,” he said. “I would reassign him.” Jones said such a step would be an injustice to Bronner, “but the newspaper has to come first.”

I felt that Hoyt was largely dismissive of the genuine and justifiable substantive criticisms levelled by critics like myself against Bronner’s often shabby reporting.  But I really don’t care that much because in the end Hoyt made the right judgment (but for different reasons than mine).  To be clear, the public editor is not a decision-maker.  He influences the tone and environment.  But Bill Keller is the one calling the shots and Keller is 110% behind Bronner.  Keller was likely the one who decided the Times could afford to stiff-arm the external critics like Ali Abunimah who asked whether Bronner’s son was serving.  And it was Keller who made this absolutely lame defense of Bronner’s transparency and lack of conflict of interest:

Keller said that if Israel launched a new assault into Gaza and Bronner’s son were a foot soldier, “I don’t think I’d have any problem with Ethan covering the conflict.” It would be a tougher call if the son rose to a commanding role, he said, and if the son’s unit were accused of wrongdoing, Keller said he thought he would assign another reporter.

This is preposterous.  Israel conducts yet another war on Gaza in which Bronner’s son serves & the former can still remain objective and unconflicted?  The only eventuality that would cause Bronner to substitute another reporter (but not rotate Bronner out of Israel) would be an accusation of war crimes against the son’s unit and then only if the son were an officer?  And I’ve got news for Keller: the last Gaza war involved virtually all Israeli units engaging in savage acts that Goldstone has characterized as possible war crimes.  What the Times’ senior editor does not understand about Israel and its military strategy is that it has become all-out war against military and civilian targets.  And this is a global doctrine for the entire army.  It’s not a question of a rogue unit here or there.  So with Bronner Jr. fighting in the IDF and killing Palestinians, there is simply no way that the Israeli army will escape general scrutiny for war crimes.  That’s why Keller’s distinction is a false one.

In his own defense of Bronner, Keller once against shows how tone-deaf he is.  In his view, reassigning Bronner  would mean giving in to the so-called terrorism of Israel and Bronner’s critics:

…We are reluctant to capitulate to the more savage partisans who make that assignment so difficult — and who make the fairmindedness of a correspondent like Ethan so precious and courageous.

That is so not the point I can’t begin to explain.  While some critics of Bronner may be unreasonable and have it in for Israel and deliberately conflate the two, I am not one of those.  The Times has had excellent reporters covering Israel in the past.  It will no doubt have excellent ones in future.  But Bronner is not one of these.  His writing, as I’ve written here many times is hopelessly conflicted.  He sees only one narrative much of the time.  He goes through the motions in an attempt to be fair to the other side, but he has so little understanding and empathy for the Palestinians that he fails almost every time.

I am not arguing that Ethan Bronner is not a good reporter.  I am arguing that he is not a good reporter when covering this issue.  His ideological biases, as subtle as they might be (and I know many of my readers find this too sympathetic to Bronner), are readily evident and compromise his work.  Keep in mind that not only is his son now in Tzahal, but his wife is Israeli as well.

Again, there is no reason why generally a reporter should not be able to overcome these two conflicts.  Good Israeli reporters like Gideon Levy and Larry Derfner do it and succeed in maintaining the necessary distance required.  But Bronner is American and not Israeli.  And for some reason he fails to maintain that distance in his reporting.

Here’s another confused and convoluted argument from Keller in defense of non-capitulation to the ideological hordes:

It is, in addition to those things, a sign of respect for readers who care about the region and who follow the news from there with minds at least partially open. You seem to think that you ( and Alex Jones) can tell the difference between reality and appearances, but our readers can’t. I disagree.

Beware of an editor who claims he won’t do something out of respect to the intelligence of his readers.  That editor is a coward.  My mind has been open to the NY Times coverage of Israel and other topics for decades.  I value the newspaper heritage it represents.  My mind is open.  But not to Ethan Bronner.  And I think Bill Keller insults the intelligence of the tens of thousands of Times readers who do not believe Ethan Bronner can fulfill his assignment satisfactorily.

Keller then lists a series of distinguished TImes reporters who have had putative conflicts of interest which, on closer examination, Keller doesn’t find to be so.  Here is one in which Keller neglects to understand the difference between Bronner and the reporter under discussion:

Anthony Shadid, who currently covers Iraq for us, is an American of Lebanese descent. He covered the Israeli invasion of Lebanon for the Washington Post, and he wrote with distinction and fairmindedness. Again, I don’t know his politics and can’t discern them in his work, but I know that his background — what you and Alex Jones might call his appearance of a conflict of interest — enriches his work with a deep appreciation of the language, culture and history of the region.

First, Shadid is not covering Lebanon for the Times. Second, he is not Lebanese but an American of Lebanese descent.  Third, he does not have a son serving in the Lebanese or Iraqi army nor in any of the local militias.  If he did and he was covering this story the Times would reassign him.  Bronner is Jewish and clearly a Zionist supporter of Israel, married to an Israeli with a son in the IDF.  Combining all these elements with the actual quality of his analysis gives you no choice but to see Bronner in a different category than Shahid.

Here’s another Times reporter who he exploits in a false manner:

Nazila Fathi, our brave Tehran correspondent, was hounded out of her native country and into exile by the current regime. Does that “conflict of interest” disqualify her from writing about Iran?

If Nazil Fathi were married to an Iranian hardliner who was a member of the government or if she was married to a leader of the Iranian opposition or if her son was in the Basij or Revolutionary Guards (in which many Iranian youth enlist) then the Times would reassign her because she clearly would have a conflict that, no matter how superb her reporting (which is superb by the way), would create an appearance of a conflict.

Here’s another bit of disingenuousness:

…To prevent any appearance of bias, would you say we should not send Jewish reporters to Israel?

This misses the point by a mile.  The Times usually sends Jewish correspondents to cover Israel: David Shipler, Tom Friedman, Deborah Sontag, etc.  The problem isn’t that they or Ethan Bronner is Jewish.  The only question that matters is can they overcome whatever prejudices they may’ve built up in the course of a lifetime of being raised as a Jew and supporting Israel as this Zionist education is inculcated in American Jews.  All of the Jewish reporters I mentioned (yes, even Friedman at the time), managed to do so–except Bronner.  It is not a question of being Jewish, but rather what kind of Jew and reporter you are.  Can you rise above your upbringing when that is required of you?  Bronner tries but ultimately cannot.  The others could.

Poor Bill Keller, he just doesn’t get it:

My point is not that Ethan’s family connections to Israel are irrelevant…How those connections affect his innermost feelings about the country and its conflicts, I don’t know. I suspect they supply a measure of sophistication about Israel and its adversaries that someone with no connections would lack. I suspect they make him even more tuned-in to the sensitivities of readers on both sides, and more careful to go the extra mile in the interest of fairness.

This guy is clueless.  Why would the fact that Ethan Bronner is married to an Israeli and has a son serving in the IDF “supply a measure of sophistication about” the Palestinians, which I presume is also supposed to be his beat?  Note, Keller himself can’t be bothered to call the Palestinians by their real name, but they become the generic “Israel’s adversaries.”  Why would Bronner be “tuned in to the sensitivities” of readers critical of Israel, or Arab or Muslim readers?  What would give Keller the right to make such a foolish, unfounded claim?  The truth is Ethan Bronner is tuned in to Israel and Israelis.  He represents their views and sentiments fairly well.  But he fails miserably when it comes to understanding the other side.  And this is simply unacceptable in the pages of a sophisticated newspaper of the world like the Times.

Related posts:

1. Times Israel Correspondent Bronner: Son Likely Serving in IDF In July, I heard a rumor which claimed that Ethan...
2. FAIR Questions Bronner’s Objectivity The progressive media watchdog group, FAIR, has published a statement...
3. Bronner’s Mischaracterization of Hamas Continues Not an article Ethan Bronner writes goes by without the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.