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

Posts Tagged ‘comment-is-free’

Obama’s First Year: an Appraisal

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

A year ago, I wrote a post for Comment is Free expressing my hopes and dreams for an Obama presidency.  Most of my comments revolved around the then upcoming Israeli elections.  The editors asked the same authors to follow up a year later with an appraisal of Obama’s first year in office.  What follows are excerpts of my post from a year ago followed by my one-year appraisal published a few days ago:

…Though Obama campaigned as somewhat of a hardliner on issues like Iran and Jerusalem to ensure support from the Jewish community, I do not believe he will govern or implement policy as a hawk. Nor will he be the anti-Israel pushover imagined by McCain and Jewish Republicans. He will not govern from ideology or even primarily from a sense of altruism. He will be a hard-headed realist trying to hold fast to a set of overarching principles.

…If Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud opposition and until recently the frontrunner in the polls, wins, then it will be a cold day in hell before peace agreements are signed with either the Syrians or Palestinians. In addition, we can expect continuing bellicosity toward Iran (and vice-versa). Certainly an Israeli attack against Iran is in the cards, along with escalating violence toward the Palestinians. One should expect Hamas to forgo its six-month-long truce and return to Qassam and terror attacks.

No matter how deft Obama’s policy is, I don’t see any way he can make progress with the rejectionist Likud in power. No one should make any mistake that Netanyahu is capable to doing a Sharon and becoming a pragmatic moderate when faced with governing (as opposed to campaigning, which always brings out the worst in Israeli politicians). Netanyahu is no Sharon. He is an opportunist and ideologue at the same time, but he is not pragmatic in the way that Sharon was.

♦  ♦  ♦

Obama Israeli-Arab Scorecard: A for Vision, C for Execution

Barack Obama earns a grade of A for vision and C for execution on his performance in his first year in office regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict.  He earns top marks for vision based largely on his magnificent Cairo speech, which was easily the most remarkable public statement any U.S. president has ever made on the subject.  But he earns a C for execution because hardly anything voiced in that speech has been translated into concrete accomplishment.

The major element of Obama administration efforts over the past few months has been a settlement freeze, which Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has successfully resisted.  The U.S. also made the foolhardy decision to lean on PA leader Mahmoud Abbas to scuttle the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war, for which Abbas took a drubbing in the Palestinian street.

It is beginning to dawn on U.S. policymakers that they may have to jettison the settlement freeze and move directly to final status negotiations.  But neither side seems willing to do so.

Israeli leaders are expert in the art of obfuscation and delay—which has been a hallmark of Israeli policy since 1967 (not that the Palestinians don’t deserve their share of blame as well).  The current Israeli government is both unwilling and unable to provide any positive leadership toward that end.  It seems interested in maintaining the status quo at all costs.

Reluctantly, tough love seems the only answer.  The path to an agreement will be massive, coordinated pressure on both sides by the U.S. and its European allies (including Russia).  This could involve withholding U.S. economic and military aid to Israel and other forms of temporary sanctions.  It could involve a peace agreement imposed on both sides and enforced by international peacekeepers.  The reason why such a solution could work is that both sides essentially know the outlines of a final agreement, which has been formulated both in the Clinton talks and the Geneva Accord.  Despite knowing, neither side seems able to get to Yes, which may be why the international community has to intercede.

Such an eventuality will make Israel’s supporters howl in protest and, as a supporter of Israel, I don’t relish the prospect either.  But nothing has worked thus far, neither moral suasion nor step-by-step negotiation.  If I believed Israel had a possible political alternative in the form of a more liberal governing coalition that could come to power and move the process forward, I might say hold off.  But given that Ehud Olmert’s last government was a centrist coalition that made no progress on these matters, I can’t say that waiting for Tzipi Livni to take the reins at some future date will lead to better results.

That is why if Barack Obama really wants a peace agreement he will have to be much tougher than he has till now.  Instead of the visionary Obama, we need Obama the doer.  Results are far more critical than glowing words.

End of My Run at Comment is Free

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

[UPDATE: I'm pleased to say that my editor has contacted me and asked me to continue to write for CiF.  He had not read my e mail and did not know I had withdrawn from writing for the Guardian.  This is an outcome that pleases me.  So you'll be seeing that Friedman piece in print in the near future plus coverage of the J Street conference at CiF.]

I’m probably going to violate a sacred rule of journalism: that is, that one shouldn’t write about the nitty gritty that goes on behind the scenes between writer and editor–something like Toto pulling the curtains aside to reveal the blustering fellow pretending to be the Great and Powerful Oz. Also, it may not be the best idea to write about publishing relationships that don’t end up working out for one party or the other. But I’m going to do it anyway to get a few things off my chest.

I had a good run at Comment is Free. I began writing for them just after the Lebanon war during the time of their extraordinary coverage of that war, under the rubric of Independent Jewish Voices, through blog posts from every conceivable angle on the conflict.  This in turn led to my writing a chapter for A Time to Speak Out, a collection of essays originally published in CiF.  After the Guardian opened a U.S. bureau in Washington, I began writing for CIF America. When they first launched, my new editor told me he saw me publishing once a week or more in CIF. Though that never happened, I did publish every two weeks or so and developed a good working relationship with my editor.

But writing freelance can be very frustrating and the relationship between writer and editor is often tenuous and unstable. I had an awkward situation in which I couldn’t write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unless it was accepted by a different editor based in London. This editor hardly ever accepted any of my queries, so my writing had to be confined to issues involving Israel and U.S. policy. Still, I managed to follow the protocol and find subjects to write about.

Then I began to notice that pieces I wrote which had been accepted wouldn’t run for long periods. When I asked I was told the editor was waiting for a suitable opening to run it. Since my earlier pieces were always published promptly, I found this puzzling.

A few months ago Tom Friedman wrote what I considered an especially condescending NY Times column about the wonders of Salaam Fayyad and the West Bank economic miracle. My editor, who also shared a distaste for Friedman, liked the idea of a critique and I wrote one. He responded that he liked it. All well and good. Except that the piece never ran. A few weeks later, I finally called my editor and asked if there was anything in particular holding up publication. He replied that the piece was too long. So I edited it and cut it almost by half. He said he liked it once again. And I thought finally the piece would be published. But it wasn’t. I waited weeks longer and e-mailed several times. The answer was always “we’re waiting for an opening to publish it.”

Finally, after working this over in my mind many months, I decided to pull the piece and let my editor know I wouldn’t be writing for CIF anymore. It’s damn hard to get a freelance gig and some may say I was foolish in what I did. But I just didn’t see any other way. I didn’t feel my work was receiving the respect I felt it deserved.  Perhaps if I were a professional journalist and had other publication venues, I might have approached this differently since falling out of favor with one publisher could be compensated by building relationship with new ones.  But I didn’t have that luxury.

To prove my point about the the regard in which I was held, neither my editor nor Georgia Henry, CIF general editor, replied to my e mail announcing my decision. You’d think it might deserve just a few words in reply if just for old times’ sake.

There are writers still writing for CiF who I respect and they tell me their relationships remain strong with it and their editors.  So I don’t precisely to know what to attribute this.  But certainly despite my ending my run, it remains an important venue for progressive writing about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

At any rate, CIF’s loss if your gain. The next post I publish here will be the original story I wrote for CIF. It’s a tad out of date, but savaging Tom Friedman can never be out of date because he so richly deserves it.

Comment is Free on The Israel Project’s Hasbara ‘Fictionary’

Monday, July 13th, 2009

I’ve been writing a serial critique of Frank Luntz’s 2009 Language “Fictionary” written for The Israel Projects hasbara efforts on behalf of the Israeli Occupation.  Comment is Free just published my own account of the project.  It was written after I’d read Douglas Bloomfield’s critique of the document, but before I’d had a chance to delve deeper into it when the full handbook became available at the Newsweeek site.  But my piece is still useful as an introduction to the worst aspects of Luntz’s puerile hasbara handbook.

Comment is Free Piece on Jane Harman and the Aipac Spy Scandal

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Comment is Free has just published an expanded and updated version of my post on Jane Harman and the Aipac spy scandal.  Feel free to weigh in the comment thread.  There’s always a lively debate going on.  Unfortunately, we had to omit the material I wrote about last night concerning Naor Gilon.

Comment is Free: Holding Israel Accountable for Gaza War Crimes

Monday, April 20th, 2009

The Guardian’s Comment is Free has just published a new piece I wrote about the burgeoning movement demanding  accountability for Israeli war crimes during the Gaza war.  I address the question of whether the international effort this time will be more successful than past stalled efforts that followed Israeli atrocities like the 2006 Lebanon war.  While I don’t have a definitive answer, I note that momentum is greater and specific efforts by human rights campaigners more organized than in the past.  I note increased interest in the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement even among American Jews.

There’s a pretty lively debate in the comment section to which I invite you.

Why Bernie Madoff Makes Jews Nervous

Wednesday, December 24th, 2008

Comment is Free published today, Bernie Madoff, Bad for the Jews, a slightly different version of a post I published here just after the Madoff scandal began.  While I’m not surprised at the high number of deleted comments which apparently were anti-Semitic, I AM surprised at the number of commenters who argue that Madoff’s Jewishness and the religion of many of his clients has nothing to do with the story.  One commenter argues that if Madoff weren’t Jewish I’d be writing the story quite differently.  But that’s the point, isn’t it?  He IS Jewish.

Are we so frightened of anti-Semitism that we should cover this story without making reference to Madoff’s religion?  Even if he himself used his religion as part of the marketing of his financial empire?  I’m not prepared to look at every incident as to whether it’s good or bad for the Jews (I didn’t choose the CiF title for my piece by the way).  I’m not prepared to quake at the possibility that anti-Semites will come out of woodwork when we discuss this matter.  Let them.  If we DIDN’T discuss this, then the anti-Semites would point that out as well and they’d be right to do so.  We have nothing to hide and nothing for which to be afraid or ashamed.  It is vital that Madoff’s crimes be discussed and lessons learned including ones that relate specifically to the Jewish world.

Jerusalem Post Slams My Mumbai Comment is Free Post

Saturday, December 13th, 2008

I’ve arrived in a manner of speaking.  The right-wing Jerusalem Post finds me a significant enough presence to devote an entire article to attacking my Comment is Free post about the Mumbai attacks, Exploiting Mumbai’s Tragedy, in which I argued that the attack was anti-Israeli more than it was anti-Semitic.  I did so in order to diminish the Jewish urge for vengeance and holy war against Islam.

The headline claims that I “sparked a fury” on the Jewish right with the claim that the Chabad House massacre was not anti-Semitic.  Of course, that headline left out the fact that I did claim it was anti-Israeli and denounced it no matter what the motivation was.  This omission allows a lazy right wing reader (of which there are so many at the Jpost) to presume that I didn’t denounce the attack at all.

My biggest complaint was that the reporter didn’t show enough koved toward my work to link to it in his article.  LInkage is the coin of the internet realm.  Ironic that the Jerusalem Post blog section does link to Tikun Olam, but its reporter finds my work so outrageous that he refuses to link to it in an article entirely devoted to it.

And hey, maybe I’ll hit the trifecta: if Rosner writes an entire post at JPost denouncing me it’ll be like going to leftie Jewish heaven.

At least the reporter accurately quoted my views and did so fairly extensively.  As my friend Stefan Merken wrote to me, “It’s still a conversation [with the right] that’s worth having.”

Republican Dirty Tricks: New ‘Comment is Free’ Piece

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

Comment is Free has published a piece of mine which summarizes the posts I’ve been writing about the Obsession-push poll stories over the past week or so: GOP Dirty Tricks in the Swing States.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE