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 ‘goldstone report’

The Beat Goes On: Dershowitz Slanders Me in Jerusalem Post Too, Ghouls Rejoice

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

Recently, I wrote that Alan Dershowitz had published a Huffington Post blog in which he named and quoted from my blog post, The Zionization of Disaster Relief, about Israel’s PR extravaganza in Haiti.  Instead of attributing the blog post to me, the author, and linking to this blog, instead he wrote the following:

The neo-Nazi Web site ReportersNotebook.com features a blog entitled The Zionization of Disaster Relief.

The editors of Huffington Post, after saying they would address the issue, have not yet done so.  Now I discover that Dersh also published this same post on the same date, January 24th, in his Jerusalem Post blog.  I’ve also written to the Post’s editors asking them to correct the record.

Given that I’ve attacked Alan Dershowitz before here, it can be no accident why he formulated his paragraph about my blog post in the fraudulent manner he did.  And now comes circumstantial evidence that this is the case.   An anti-Semitism-obsessed, anti-jihadi, pro-Israel blogger, Adam Holland, has taken up the cudgels.  Holland is also one of Joe Weissman’s buddies, who I’ve also criticized for his jihad against Anglican cleric Stephen Sizer.

Strangely enough, Holland also actually blogs at Daily Kos.  I wonder what credentials got him that gig?  Is being a pro-Israel, Muslim hater sufficient now to get oneself a diary at DK (apologies to a few of my good blogging friends who are DK diarists)?  This is beginning to look like pro-Israel tag team wrestling.  You bad mouth one of theirs and they’ll double team you with some of their big, fat sweaty hack heavyweights.

I’m not even going to get into how badly Holland mischaracterizes my views in the Haiti post I wrote.  More interesting to me is the McCarthyite guilt by association rhetorical style of demagogue-goons like Holland (and Weissman, Horowitz, Pipes and others):

Silverstein’s column has traversed the left-right wormhole and has been published by the neo-Nazi blogger (and David Irving associate) Michael Santomauro at his Reporters Notebook website (read here). Alan Dershowitz read this reposted version of Silverstein’s column and blasted it in a column of his own…Silverstein’s column has also been reposted on Russia’s Pravda English language forum and the Arab website Uruknet.

My work is republished (without my knowledge or permission, but that’s neither here nor there) by a Holocaust revisionist, the discussion forum of a Russian newspaper, and an Arab website–and that makes me…what?  A known associate of organized revisionism, the Russians, and jihadists?

This may satisfy those of little brain among the pro-Israel-obsessed blog world.  They don’t seem to be able to debate honestly or characterize accurately what you write, so they resort to these fraudulent intellectual stunts.  The Who once sang: “We won’t be fooled again.”  Unlike their song, I don’t think anyone is fooled by this narischkeit.

To me, this indicates a deep unease about Israel’s perilous position on the world stage as the Goldstone Report begins to reoccupy headlines and Israel refuses to appoint the investigative commission demanded by the UN panel.  The government has launched a vicious counter-attack against Israeli and international human rights NGOs, Israeli and Palestinian peace activists, the Report itself, and progressive bloggers who attest to the inadequacy of Israel’s response.  The attack is also coordinated along with internet activists recruited by the Foreign Ministry.  Dershowitz and buddies of his like Weissman and Holland also play a useful role.  I call it the vast right-wing hasbara conspiracy-crusade.

Dershowitz and Holland attacked my post because it revealed that the clothes the Haiti hasbara emperor were wearing were hiding the sins of Gaza.  Interesting who they haven’t attacked though–the Israeli doctor (and IDF Lt. Col.) whose newspaper article formed the basis for my article.  My post is 85% Dr. Yoel Donchin‘s article from the Israeli press with 15% commentary written by me.  But it would be much harder to target an experienced medicine specialist from Israel’s Hadassah Hospital as being anti-Israel or loony-left than me (though it won’t succeed with me either).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

IDF Refuses Gaza War Crimes Investigation: Time for ICC Referral

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

Ashkenazi and Barak: Investigation? We don't want your stinking investigation (Nir Kafri)

Both Israel and Hamas have essentially refused to comply with conditions laid down in the Goldstone Report, which called for a serious investigation by each party of the charges of crimes against civilians during the Gaza war.  Justice Goldstone gave each side three months to reply to this condition and that deadline came Friday.  Each party’s reply was feeble, but Israel’s more feeble since it killed considerably more.

Hamas apologized for the three Israeli civilians it killed and said their death was a “mistake.”  Were it not for an even more feeble Israeli response, Hamas’ would’ve earned the derision it deserved.  But Israel’s was classic and all over the place.  In one government leak, it’s claimed Bibi is willing to appoint an investigative panel that would be enfeebled even before it began; with no subpoena power and extremely limited mandate.  One panel member’s name suggested: Alan Dershowitz!  Now comes word that the IDF itself refuses an external investigation:

…The defense establishment appears to be steadfast in its refusal to have the IDF’s monopoly over examination of its actions challenged.

…Senior Jerusalem officials warned that Israel’s response to the UN will not satisfy the international community and that eventually an examination committee that is outside the IDF will have to be appointed to investigate last year’s military operation in the Gaza Strip.

Senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Bureau say that Netanyahu is inclined to accept the justice and foreign ministries’ call for an additional examination, by an extra-military body, into cases in which innocent civilians were harmed during Operation Cast Lead. Netanyahu is convinced that only an independent probe will convince the international community that Israel is serious in its investigation of alleged violations of the law of war.

Actually, this is laughable because the version of an “independent” probe I outlined above will satisfy no one outside the Israeli government, nor should it.

Here’s why:

“To date,” the Israeli report [to the UN defending Operation Cast Lead states, "the IDF has launched investigations into 150 separate incidents arising from the Gaza Operation. Of the 150 incidents, so far 36 have been referred for criminal investigation.

So with 1,100 Gaza civilians killed, the IDF investigated a total of 150 incidents and found only 36 even worthy of a fuller investigation.  Now, we all know the history of the IDF in investigating itself.  If there is any way it can exonerate itself (and there virtually always is unless the heat is on from international sources) it will.  So you can be sure that of the 36 perhaps one, if you're lucky, might result in any punishment at all.  In fact, the only known discipline I've heard of meted out so far to any IDF soldier for acts committed during Cast Lead was a soldier reprimanded for stealing a Gazan credit card.  1,100 civilians killed and all they could find worth punishing was theft of a crummy credit card!  Really, they must be joking.

So I propose that Ban Ki Moon refer the matter to the Security Council, part of the process Goldstone requested prior to asking the International Criminal Court to take up the case in the event the parties do not investigate their own excesses.  One thing's for sure: as soon as mentions Goldstone and ICC in the same sentence, Bibi will announce with a flourish an "independent" Israeli investigation.  It will, of course be toothless, fragmented and ineffectual.  And here is where the world community will be tested.  Will it be satisfied by yet another Israeli charade; or will it call Israel's bluff and take matters further?  Will Security Council members like the U.S. even let anything close to this happen?  Likely they will not.  But my hope is that Pres. Obama will find some way to exert pressure on Israel whether or not he ends up vetoing such a resolution.

Those of you who follow the State of the Union will note that Pres. Obama ignored the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, meaning it's likely he jettisoned it from his current political agenda (along with health care if you can believe the headlines of the NY Times).  This doesn't bode well for the Goldstone Report's future.  But I still remain hopeful that this document will have staying power and continue to rankle Israel (and to a lesser extent Hamas) until they grapple with it in a serious way.

FAIR Questions Bronner’s Objectivity

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

The progressive media watchdog group, FAIR, has published a statement joining Electronic Intifada and Tikun Olam in questioning the stonewalling approach the NY Times has taken to the issue of whether Ethan Bronner’s son’s induction into the IDF raises questions about his objectivity and conflict of interest:

What the Times needs to ask itself is whether it expects that its bureau chief has the normal human feelings about matters of life or death concerning one’s child.

Might he feel hostility, for example, when interviewing members of organizations who were trying to kill his son? When the IDF goes into battle, might he be rooting for the side for which his son is risking his life? Certainly such issues would be taken very seriously if a Times reporter had a child who belonged to a military force that was engaged in hostilities with the IDF; indeed, there’s little doubt that a reporter in that position would not be allowed to continue to cover the Mideast conflict.

Having a conflict of interest, it should be stressed, is not the same thing as producing slanted journalism; rather, it means that a journalist has outside motivations that are strongly at odds with his or her journalistic responsibilities. That a journalist has been “scrupulously fair” in the past does not excuse an ongoing conflict of interest; journalists should not be placed in a position where they have to ignore the well-being of their family in order to do their job, nor should readers be expected to trust that they can do so.

FAIR goes on to note that Bronner’s reporting has certainly not been known to be “scrupulously fair” in the past, which strengthens the level of concern among progressive readers of the Times.  I wrote here that Bronner’s last report on a new IDF offensive against the Goldstone Report claims that “virtually all Israelis” and even human rights NGOs agree there was no wholesale attack on civilian infrastructure in Gaza as Goldstone claims.  This is a patently false statement and has no right being in a newspaper claiming to represent a neutral perspective on this issue.

Please take FAIR’s advice and write or call Clark Hoyt, the Times’ public editor.  If he covers this at all publicly, he’ll doubtless side with Bronner and his editors, but it’s still worth trying to keep ‘em honest:

CONTACT:
New York Times
Clark Hoyt, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
Phone: 212-556-7652

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Dershowitz: Israel’s New Goldstone

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Sometimes I think the Israeli government’s deliberations are so ludicrous they’re meant to be comic.  Take Israel’s so-called answer to the Goldstone Report.  The UN investigative body gave the parties to the Gaza war three months to respond by opening a credible investigation of the charges in the report.  Israel has dithered the entire time and for most of it absolutely refused to consider doing so.  The thinking clearly was that wind would die out of the sails of the Report and Israel could get away with doing nothing.

Dershowitz: Israel's new Goldstone to investigate Cast Lead?

Instead, just the opposite has happened.  The world has taken Goldstone seriously and now it appears Israel will have to–not take Goldstone seriously–but figure out a way to appear to be taking it seriously.  Haaretz reports that the government is contemplating establishing a limited investigation which would have none of the trappings of a formal commission of inquiry.  It would not have subpoena power.  It could not question IDF operational commanders.  It could not examine specific incidents in the way Goldstone did.  All it could do would be to examine IDF investigations of those incidents.  It could also interview politicians and generals responsible for creating the military doctrine on which Cast Lead was fought.  The goal is to limit any inquiry to the specific question: did Israel systematically target Gaza civilian infrastructure for destruction.

In effect, what the government is doing shrewdly is taking the hardest element of the Goldstone Report to prove conclusively and saying: OK, we’ll agree to examine this one limited question.  We won’t examine specific incidents to determine whether they are war crimes.  We won’t ask specific commanders how they and their troops behaved in the field.

But I’m saving the best for last–and this is where the real comedy creeps in: Bibi wants a real swell cast of characters to sit on this committee.  They would be Israeli jurists and an “international jurist” of renown.  No, silly they’re not talking about Richard Falk!  Who else but Alan Dershowitz!!  I kid you not.  Now do you get the joke?

Sometimes I get to feeling sorry for poor ol’ Holocaust: he’s beaten and battered by certain Israeli opportunists attempting to guilt the world into never criticizing that country for anything it does.  So comes news that senior government ministers will be blanketing world capitals for Yom HaShoah which happens to coincide closely with the three month deadline mentioned above.  Here’s Ynetnews’ subheadline:

Peres in Berlin, Netanyahu in Auschwitz, Lieberman in Budapest and Edelstein at UN headquarters in New York all plan attack UN report into Gaza war on International Holocaust Day.

The clear message: We suffered, baby.  Don’t you dare think you can lay Goldstone on us.  We won’t take it.  After losing six million don’t you think you’ve taken enough from us?  Can’t they let old Holocaust be?  Can’t it just be a historical event and not a Rorschach test for Jewish identity?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

IDF Finally to Engage Goldstone, Day Late and Dollar Short

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

Ethan Bronner writes a N.Y. Times report on a new propaganda offensive by the IDF against the Goldstone Report.  It seems Israel has finally decided to engage with the document’s claims that Israel may have committed war crimes during last year’s Gaza war.  Of course, it could’ve done so by testifying to the UN investigative body so that Israel’s perspective could’ve been incorporated into the finished document.  At the time, Israel evidently judged it could filibuster and disparage this effort, as they have so many previous international attempts to hold Israel accountable for its actions concerning the Palestinians.  But for some reason, Goldstone has developed much more staying power than other similar past efforts.

Bronner highlights several particular findings of the UN report with which the IDF takes issue.  But in each of the two cases it appears to me that Israel is doing precisely what it did during the war–saying events did not happen as the victims claim but without providing any convincing evidence:

One concerned the destruction of Gaza’s sole flour mill. The Goldstone report asserts that the Bader flour mill “was hit by an airstrike, possibly by an F-16.” The Israeli investigators say they have photographic proof that this is false, that the mill was accidentally hit by artillery in the course of a firefight with Hamas militiamen.

The dispute is significant since the United Nations report asserts that “the destruction of the mill was carried out for the purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population,” an explicit war crime.

A second finding concerned the destruction of a wastewater plant, leading to an enormous outflow of raw sewage. The Goldstone report contended that it was hit by a powerful Israeli missile in a strike that was “deliberate and premeditated.” The Israelis say they had nothing to do with that plant’s collapse and suggest that it may have been the result of Hamas explosives.

One of the things I find discouraging about Bronner’s reporting is his credulousness in the face of Israeli claims.  Note Israeli investigators SAY they have photographs to prove their point.  And in the second case Israel doesn’t even claim to have evidence but states bald-facedly that it had nothing to do with the sewage plant’s destruction.  It doesn’t provide any evidence of its suggestion that Hamas MAY have been the cause.

We’ll await the actual Israeli report to see if it is any more persuasive than the jaundiced peek that Bronner provides.  It’s doubtful, given Israeli denials of culpability beginning during the war itself and persisting to the present day.  I also note Bronner didn’t mention other even more dramatic incidents in which Goldstone accused Israel of the killings of large groups of civilians in multiple incidents.

Bronner also notes the IDF rebuttal will include the tired old argument that international standards of war need to be revised to incorporate new types of asymmetric warfare in which nation states are at a disadvantage when they strike at insurgents who fight from within a civilian population.  This is a non-starter.  It doesn’t resonate with any serious analyst of the laws of war I’ve heard discuss the issue.  It’s merely yet another Israeli attempt to throw arguments against the wall to see if any will stick.  In the process, it hopes that merely by paying attention to its arguments the world may be that much more distracted from the real crimes committed.

There is one passage from Bronner that really brought me up short.  It is a flagrantly overstated distortion of real Israeli opinion about the Gaza war and must be rebutted by Israeli NGOs and peace activists:

Virtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group B’Tselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct.

U.S. Congress members visit ruins of American-funded International School destroyed by Israeli bombs (AP)

In all the critiques I’ve written about Ethan Bronner’s compromised reporting from Israel, this is one of his most glaring distortions.  Let’s just take this passage summarizing a statement from seven Israeli human rights NGOs presented to the Goldstone team during their investigation:

The report presents the Goldstone Committee with detailed findings concerning violations of the laws of war that the Israel military allegedly committed during its attack on the Gaza Strip…referring mainly to policies of collective punishment used against the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. The report details Israeli military offensives that failed to discriminate between combatants and civilians, damage to civilian government buildings for political objectives, attacks on medical rescue teams, damage to public infrastructure, holding detainees in conditions that violate Israeli and international law, and collective punishment.

And I haven’t even gotten into the full report which you may read here. And the Israeli Committee Against Torture released its own report critiquing the IDF’s war strategy in Gaza as a violation of the laws of war BECAUSE it inordinately targeted civilians:

The Israeli government’s claims that the IDF made every effort to avoid harm to Palestinian civilians, and that the damage caused was reasonable given the circumstances, are at odds with the actual operation and its results. Not only do the events in the field attest to this, but so do the very statements made at the time by the same Israeli authorities who today proclaim their innocence.

Bronner here risks making himself and the Times a laughingstock of willful hasbarism.  I’m not claiming that Bronner is doing this intentionally.  But it doesn’t matter whether he’s aware of the ideological assumptions of his reporting or not.  The fact is that as one of the world’s most prominent Israel correspondents, he is carrying water for the IDF and government, and distorting the real picture of Israeli opposition to the Gaza war.

I can deal with this when it comes from an avowed Israel advocate like Dershowitz.  At least you know what you’re getting.  But Bronner and the Times have the imprimatur of journalistic gravitas and don’t deserve it in this case.

On a final note, I was also astonished that B’Tselem allowed itself to become part of Bronner’s case that Israelis universally condemn Goldstone’s claim of a deliberate Israeli plan to destroy civilian infrastructure:

“I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack on civilian infrastructure,” said Yael Stein, research director of B’Tselem. “It is not convincing.

This is too much to bear.  Anyone who has visited Gaza or lives there can see with their own eyes that this is simply wrong.  The schools, mosques, parliament, civilian ministries, factories, UNWRA food warehouse, everything it takes to make a society–virtually all of it was systematically destroyed.  And Israeli generals during the war essentially conceded this point by claiming that every Gazan was presumed either a combatant or supporter of Hamas, and therefore a likely combatant.  Israel soldiers themselves reported Gaza was a virtual free fire zone in which anything that moved whether civilian or not was considered a target.  1,100 of the 1,400 Gazans killed by the IDF were civilians, which further underscores either a willful campaign to target civilians or a strategy that accepted the decimation of the civilian population as a corollary of the approach.

I generally admire B’Tselem’s human rights work.  But in this they have fallen down hard and deserve criticism.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Jerome Slater’s New Blog

Monday, January 18th, 2010

SUNY Buffalo professor emeritus Jerome Slater

SUNY Buffalo political science professor, Jerome Slater has become a welcome addition to the progressive Jewish blog world.  His new one, Jerome Slater: On the U.S. and Israel, covers specific territory for which he is a distinguished expert: human rights, the laws of war and just war theory, and the political rhetoric of the conflict.  Slater is one of the few I know who can take on a figure as formidable as Michael Walzer on his own terms and best him.

Though it is not quite as true now as it once was, I have always said that what the online world needs regarding the I-P conflict is not more savage, confrontational blogs but ones that provide specific expertise and deep knowledge of sources.  Another point I’ve made many a time is that there are too many polemicists and too few academics (right or left) blogging.  That has changed since I first made this argument and a number of excellent academic analysts have entered the fray, but it still holds true.  That’s one of the reasons why Prof. Slater’s blog is so helpful at this time.

His first few posts provide a rebuttal to Moshe Halbertal’s attack on the Goldstone Report and an overall appraisal of that Report and Israeli conduct of the Gaza war.

I urge you to add his blog to your Google Reader.  He plans to treat his blog more as a series of essays than as an everyday blog.  But when he does have something to say it will be important to read it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Hang on, Mahmoud, Mahmoud Hang On

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

“Hang on Sloopy,
Sloopy hang on”

Hang On Sloopy, The McCoys

Obama’s desperate.  Even certain unnamed Israeli officials are desperate.  Mahmoud Abbas has had it with U.S. wimpitude and Israeli nyetitude and threatened to resign.  He raises the specter of the dismantlement of the PA, which might force Israel to resume adminstration of the West Bank–something Israel devoutly wishes to avoid.  Alternatively, Abbas raises the possibility of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood blessed by the Security Council.

So how does the Obama administration respond?  According to the NY Times’ Ethan Bronner, with the usual bromides and half measures…hang on, Mahmoud they beg:

American and Israeli officials are contemplating a series of steps to persuade Mr. Abbas to stay. They include a marked intensification of security and economic coöperation, more money, invitations to Western capitals, robust statements of support, prisoner releases and efforts to draw Arab states more fully into the process.

I mean really.  What in this list is substantive and anything more than window dressing?  Doesn’t Obama realize that even those gluttons for punishment, the Palestinians, will see through this empty gesture.  Does the U.S. think that the PA can live by “robust statements of support??”  And how will they draw the Arab states into the process when they’ve desperately tried to do so and failed thus far?  If this wasn’t so f’ing serious I’d actually be laughing.  This gives Abbas everything but what he really needs: genuine accomplishments.

Israelis understand “facts on the ground.”  That’s what they used to call settlements in the days when Ariel Sharon was Housing minister and building a settler presence in the Territories.  That’s what Mahmoud Abbas wants.  Not rhetoric, not statements, but genuine facts on the ground.  Barack and Bibi–if you can’t muster that you might as well just close up shop and go home.  Then you can leave the field to the wild-eyed men of hate on both sides.  Let the bombs fly for that the language of violence is the only speech the two sides seem to apprehend.

Why in God’s name would Abbas want to stay under these conditions?  He’d be crazy to do so.  Better to resign and retain some dignity than continue and be the butt of Palestinian jokes and worse and the object of Israeli condescension.

Ever the pro-Israel Pollyana, Bronner can’t avoid throwing a bone to Salaam Fayyad’s ridiculous two-year plan for Palestinian statehood–a plan which is something like telling the Planning Commission what your plans would have been for a piece of property that’s on fire and in the process of burning down:

Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, opposes seeking international recognition of a state. Instead, he has put forth a two-year plan aimed at building institutions and security so that the future state will be strong, transparent and well-run.

We might as well call a spade a spade.  At this rate, the much vaunted Obama peace initiative is dead and we will have to look elsewhere for ways to advance the peace process; or at least prevent it from falling even farther into the ditch than its already gone.  Similarly, with Obama butting his nose out of the I-P conflict, this leaves the Netanyahu government free and clear to pursue virtually any policy it wishes to continue the Occupation and further the aims of Judaizers seeking to evict Palestinians and further constrain their presence in Jerusalem and the West Bank.  This leaves the Israeli right triumphant at least for the time being.

I hope I’m wrong.  I hope Obama, who seems to be a gifted and persevering fellow, can surprise me.  But the record to this point doesn’t augur well for that.

That means that processes and peace activism spearheaded by the human rights NGOs like the BDS movement and the Goldstone Report will become even more important than they already are.  If the powers that be aren’t yet prepared to do the right thing and bring the Israeli Occupation to its knees, then the world progressive community will have to continue and intensify its campaign.  And Israel and its supporters should expect the continuation of the erosion of its support in the world.  They should expect intensifying cries for justice in international legal venues.  Pressure will mount even if it won’t be coming from governments like the U.S. or EU.  The punishment will come slowly and gradually till eventually it will be death (of the Occupation) by a thousand cuts.

Wiesel, NGO Monitor Board Member

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

I was just reading a Haaretz story about the orchestrated Israeli government campaign against Human Rights Watch in response to the latter’s support for the Goldstone Report.  The article noted that Elie Wiesel signed a letter to the Guardian which praised Robert Bernstein’s bitter, disjointed diatribe against HRW in the NY Times Op Ed section.  But this passage really stood out:

Human Rights Watch said that the criticism has come from right-wing blogs, but also from Israeli non-profit groups, such as NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, which is funded by U.S. donors and includes Elie Wiesel on its advisory board.

I can remember when I was a teenager in the 1960s, my rabbi took me to hear Elie Wiesel speak at local synagogues throughout the N.Y. metropolitan area.  In those days, Wiesel was viewed as a cross between a Jewish saint and seer.  Night had just come out and he was THE Jewish witness to the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust.

But Elie Wiesel has long since ceased serving that role.  He is morally conflicted about opposing the Occupation fearing that his opposition will be used against Israel by anti-Semites or some such.  This perspective has long ceased to have any legitimacy if it ever did.

The news that Wiesel sits on the board of one of the most odious far-right Israeli NGOs seals the deal as far as I’m concerned.  Wiesel might as well be a Likudnik  (maybe he is).  Henceforth, I will consider him such.

Here are the other NGO Monitor board members with whom Wiesel is keeping company : Judea Pearl, Alan Dershowitz, Martin Gilbert, James Woolsey AND Elliot Abrams.  You know what happens when you lay down with dogs like these…

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE