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 ‘kahanism’

Rabbi Meir Saves the World (Well, the Jews at Least)

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010
kahane comic

Rabbi Meir saves the world for the Jewish people

Arutz 7, the settler news portal, reveals a charming development in the branding of Israeli fascism. In order to guarantee that Kahanism will be passed on to the younger generation, some of his more loyal and innovative adherents have decided that what’s called for is a series of comic strips all conveying the wonders of what they call Rabbi Meir, Miracle Man.  Amazing that they won’t allow cigarette companies to peddle cancer sticks to children, yet they allow Israeli fascists to peddle this cancer-causing toxin to ‘em.

This is all brought to you and Israeli children by Kahane’s Israeli yeshiva, known as the Jewish Idea (after the title of one of his books).  The enterprise is warmly endorsed by none other than MK Michael Ben Ari (“Rabbi Kahane was right”), a devoted follower of the Rabbi of beloved memory:

It’s necessary to transmit to the younger generation the legacy of someone who fought for the honor of Israel and who acted on behalf of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

The panel displayed here features a thick-lipped Negroid terrorist committing basic desecrations of Jews and their symbols.  It shows the Kahane-JDL logo (“Never again”) and a laughing terrorist (“never again insulting Jews”), knife-wielding terrorist (Never again slaughtering Jews”), flag-burning terrorist (“never against desecrating God’s name”), an “erect” Rabbi Kahane (“instead, a Jew standing tall”), and pugilist Kahane (“never fearing the goyim”).  One of the interesting conceptions here is that burning an Israeli flag is not a violation of a national symbol but actually a desecration of the name of God, a telling conflation of religion and nation that would deeply disturb most Jews.

Minister Yuli Edelstein’s Hasbara ministry, responsible for a number of the wonderful rebranding efforts of the Israeli government including the truly awful Masbirim site and offshoot ads, may want to take a page from the stellar efforts of Rabbi Meir’s children, the comic book version.

To tell you the truth, I don’t think Rabbi Meir’s comic book is any threat to Art Spiegelman, Harvey Pekar or R. Crumb.  It’s not going to set the world on fire nor win any major awards.  But it’s always worthwhile checking in once in a while with the lunatic fringe of the Jewish people to find out their latest mishugas.

Kahane Grandson Arrested in Torching of Yasuf Mosque

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Arutz Sheva, the settler’s news portal, reveals that Meir Kahane’s grandson, Meir David Kahane (which was also his grandfather’s full name), 17, was arrested and is a suspect in the arson attack on a West Bank mosque in the village of Yasuf.  The latter neighbors the radical Israeli settlement of Kfar Tapuach, where the young Kahane lives.  Both his grandfather and parents were murdered by Arab militants in separate incidents.

The Israeli police refused to name the suspect, though the Jerusalem Post identified him as a Kahane “relative.”  But Arutz Sheva seems less bound by such pledges of privacy and revealed the boy’s identity.

I should also remind readers that this is the same Kfar Tapuach where Kahane-wannabe Jewish terrorist, Ephraim Khantsis, was hanging out for the past four months telling anyone within earshot that Jack Teitel, another Israeli-American terrorist on trial for several acts of murder and maiming, was a good Jewish boy and the Palis only got what they deserved, etc., etc.  The IDF recently issued an order expelling Khantsis from the West Bank for six months.

Eden Natan Zenda, another Israeli Jewish terrorist who shot up an Israeli Arab bus and killed four, also lived in Kfar Tapuach after deserting from the IDF.  That place is a regular font of brotherly love.

Can we anticipate even bigger and better acts of hatred from the Kahane clan in the future?  Perhaps graduating from arson to murder to avenge their own parents’ murders?  Where will it all end?

H/t to Eileen Read.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Yaalon Looks to Fascist Right for Support in Likud Leadership Struggle

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Bibi Netanyahu is facing no particular internal political threat (though he faces an external one in the shape of Barack Obama), yet his competitors for Likud party leadership are still jockeying for position.  Bogie Yaalon, former IDF chief of staff and current minister of strategic affairs, sees himself as a future prince of the Likud.  To become party leader, he apparently sees his best chance by allying himself with fascist right.  That’s why he spoke at an event this week honoring Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Manhigut Yehudit far right faction of the party.  In case you’re wondering where to place Feiglin on the political spectrum, think an amalgam of Geert Wilders, Meir Kahane, Jean Marie Le Pen and Jorge Haider:

Here is but a single statement out of many that I could offer:

“Hitler was an unparalleled military genius. Nazism promoted Germany from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status. The ragged, trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system and public order. Hitler savored good music. He would paint. This was no bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals.”

Feiglin’s views are so extreme that the British foreign office declared him persona non grata there, meaning he can’t fundraise among his fellow British Kahanists.

Here is a selection of Yaalon’s more offensive statements at the event:

“I, for one, am not afraid of the Americans,” Ya’alon said in the speech, which was reported by Channel 2′s Amit Segal. “I believe that Jews have the right to live anywhere in the land of Israel forever.”

In the speech, Ya’alon also denounced the power of the press and other “elites” in Israel to make or break politicians and lashed out at the extreme Left. He also called Peace Now “a virus.”

Feiglin praised Ya’alon at the rally and committed to him the support of Feiglin’s Manhigut Yehudit ideological forum in Likud, which has become increasingly powerful in the party’s institutions. That support could aid Ya’alon in an eventual run to lead the party.

Most observers of Israeli politics will not be surprised at any of this. Likud has long been the home of some of the most stridently nationalist politicians in the country. But it is still somewhat unusual for a Likud party leader to support overtly those who ardently espouse the political views of Meir Kahane.  After all, while he was alive the man was considered persona non grata and practically a Jewish terrorist by most of the nation.

This development indicates to me that had Kahane lived he would not be in jail, but rather a minister in the current government and a potential Likud party leader. Those who care about Israel must be alarmed by the alliances made by politicians such as Yaalon.  We are rapidly losing the Israel some of us once knew.  It is being replaced by a state lapsing into proto-fascism.

Lieberman May Be Denied U.S. Visa as Former Kach Member

Sunday, February 15th, 2009

Haaretz’s Akiva Eldar brings the bracing news that the Obama administration is contemplating denying U.S. visas to any Israeli politicians who were members of Kahane Chai.  The party is designated by both the U.S. and Israel as a terrorist organization.  The most prominent individual affected would be Avigdor Lieberman who, Haaretz claims, was a party member briefly after he arrived from his native Moldova:

…The State Department is evaluating…reports that MK Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beiteinu, was a member of the extreme right group Kach. It appears on a State Department list of terrorist organizations.

If the Obama administration confirms the report that appeared last week in Haaretz, and which was not denied by Lieberman, the Yisrael Beiteinu leader may not be granted a visa to enter the U.S. The close cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on matters of strategy, defense, economics, commerce, tourism and transportation means that ministers charged with relevant portfolios often visit the United States.

A new MK, Michael Ben-Ari of the National Union, confirmed that he had been a member of Kach while it was headed by Meir Kahane and may face similar restrictions.

Clearly, no Israeli government would be willing to include such a person as a senior minister since not only would Lieberman be persona non grata with the U.S. government, he would embarrass the hell out of the government in its relations with others in the international community.

I would like every progressive who doubted whether Obama would make a difference when it comes to his Israel-Palestine policy compared to Bush, to reflect on whether this sort of report could possibly be imagined coming from our former president’s administration.

All of this may explain the Maariv story reported by the Jerusalem Post that Bibi is negotiating with Barak and Livni to form an “exclude Lieberman” coalition.  Though other reports indicate that Bibi is talking with Tzipi, but not Barak, who, at any rate, is likely to sit this coalition out in Opposition.  If Bibi-Tzipi talks proceed, it will be interesting to see what guarantees if any the Likud leader will provide that he is willing to follow the Olmert line in pursuing Syrian peace neogtitionas and talks with the Palestinians as well.   If the guarantees are not ironclad, what use would sitting in a coalition with him be to Kadima?  That smacks of Peresism, a panting after power for the sake of power rather than of advancing any particular political agenda.

My personal hope is that Livni lets Netanyahu stew in his own juice and refuses to join.  This would set up an extreme rightist government beholden to Lieberman and those even farther to his right (if that is indeed possible).  Such an ideologically extreme coalition will have a shorter reign than a more politically balanced one (consider the extremism of Bush-Cheney and how relatively quickly the bloom was off the rose).

McCain Invokes Kahane’s ‘Never Again!’ in Defending Israel Against Iran

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Jim Lobe notes that McCain’s AIPAC speech predictably invoked the Holocaust to explain why the U.S. and Israel must stand alone as a bulwark against Iran:

…While he did not repeat the Bush administration’s mantra that “all options”, including a military attack, should remain “on the table” in dealing with the alleged threat, he suggested that he would resort to such measures when he focused on the post-Holocaust promise of “never again”.

(W)hen we join in saying ‘never again,’ that is not a wish, a request, or a plea to the enemies of Israel. It is a promise that the United States and Israel will honour, against any enemy who cares to test us,” he declared to enthusiastic applause…

It’s a nifty sound bite, especially before a hard-right Jewish audience like AIPAC. However, it completely twists political reality. While Ahmadinejad articulates hatred for the U.S. and Israel and the wish that they would disappear (and don’t we feel the same way about his regime?), he has never advocated genocide against Israel. He certainly realizes, unlike McCain and Israeli right-wing politicians like Bibi Netanyahu, that Iran doesn’t have the capacity to seriously damage, much less eradicate Israel. This is yet another example of misusing the Holocaust for pure partisan political gain.

Another point to keep in mind is that the slogan “Never Again!” was first popularized by Meir Kahane. Is this the Jewish model that McCain wishes to embrace? It tells you how poorly McCain’s advisors are guiding his efforts that he should embrace the words of the foremost Jewish racist of the past 50 years. Whoever’s advising him is either Jewishly ignorant or has a very bad case of amnesia.

Let’s also keep in mind that most Americans, including several of McCain’s own foreign policy advisors, reject the candidate’s “Nyet” approach to Iran:

…A new poll just released by the Gallup organisation found that nearly six in 10 U.S. voters, including nearly half of all Republican respondents, believe a U.S.-Iranian summit would be a “good idea”…

Obama['s] views on engaging Iran without conditions reflect the views of much of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, including even two of his [McCain's] key policy advisers, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and neo-conservative thinker, Robert Kagan. They have called for direct talks with Tehran…

Personally, I’m beginning to think a McCain candidacy is going to echo the clueless, out of touch 1996 campaign Robert Dole ran against a far younger, more politically nimble Democrat by the name of Bill Clinton. If 6 in 10 Americans and some of his own key advisors believe the precise opposite of what McCain espouses regarding Iran, how long before we all see that the Republican emperor is hopelessly out of touch and has no clothes?

The Still Small Voice of a Jewish Blog

Friday, January 25th, 2008

Several readers have asked to read this original, expanded version of the article Haaretz published yesterday under the title, In Praise of the Jewish Blogosphere:

I began my blog, Tikun Olam, in February, 2003 precisely one month before the Iraq war began. But even more than my budding opposition to the upcoming war, what motivated me to begin blogging was my passion to speak out on behalf of Israeli-Palestinian peace. I spent all my adult life dedicated to this cause, but until blogging developed I had no regular, public means of expressing my views. As someone who has always loved writing but not been a professional writer, it was important to have a public means of expression since I didn’t have a regular journalistic outlet. For years, I’d written letters to the editor (i.e. Haaretz, the Irish Times or Los Angeles Times). But having something published once in a blue moon was far too frustrating. And because I was neither a professional journalist nor an academic specializing in this subject, my ability to get articles published was minimal.

So when I began reading about weblogs, as they were called then, and the technology behind them, I decided to throw myself into it with as much passion as I devoted to learning Microsoft Word in 1986, shortly after it was first developed.

It was lonely at first. The world of blogs was much smaller then. The world of Jewish blogging even smaller and the world of progressive Jewish blogging even smaller still. At times, I wondered for whom I was writing. But I kept telling myself that even if I was only writing for myself that would be dayenu. First and foremost, a blog is a personal expression of angst, passion, anger, identity—whatever are your deepest emotions. Of course, everyone wants an audience. But if you don’t have something deeply felt to say, then there’s no reason to have one.

In the beginning, I reached out with mixed success to other bloggers with like-minded views. In 2005, I created a progressive discussion forum, Israel-Palestine Forum. I thought creating a Jewish blogging community was a worthwhile goal in itself; but that this also would amplify our message in the greater blog world. Bloggers though are fiercely independent creatures. They don’t want to be organized. They don’t necessarily want to be part of a community. And they surely don’t want to do what you think they should do. So I’ve had to adjust my ambitions and set humbler goals.

After five years of blogging, 2,000 posts, and 6,000 comments, I have a modest, but substantial readership with 200 subscribers and 200,000 unique visitors annually. The Guardian’s Comment is Free and American Conservative Magazine have published my work. I have guest blogged at the “alt-Jewish” website, Jewcy. Reporters have interviewed me for stories in the New York Times, Jewish Forward, Jewish Week and Seattle Post Intelligencer.

But my impact both on the blog world and the broader debate over the I-P conflict is still less than I would like. The mainstream media doesn’t beat a path to your door and even progressive sites like Huffington Post, Salon, Slate, and The Nation already have journalists covering this issue and aren’t looking for new voices. Al achat kama v’kama, the mainstream media, who are even less interested. Bloggers, except for the best known, are generally seen as second class citizens. Their writing is viewed as less trustworthy than “real” journalism. Bloggers are seen by “serious” journalists as shouters, dilettantes and dabblers rather than serious participants in the media discourse. This of course causes bloggers like me endless heartburn. I know that many of my posts deserve wider distribution, but since I’m not a major political blogger like Juan Cole, Markos Moulitsas or Eric Alterman, I have no traction.

Despite the difficulties I outlined above, blogs have played a critical role in the American Jewish community and their importance will only continue to grow. In the age before blogs, Jewish leaders were like political bosses. They ruled their roosts. Once installed, they were rock-like presences and stayed in their positions seemingly forever. Their word was halacha l’moshe mi’sinai. Anyone who doubted it was easily frozen out of communal discourse. The leaders’ politics were conservative and generally supportive of the Israeli right. The Jewish media was a corporate entity that largely expressed the views of such leaders.

Certainly, there were dissenters regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict like Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg and others. There were also progressive Jewish peace groups over the years like Breira and New Jewish Agenda. But with few financial resources, small memberships, and young, inexperienced staff, these groups formed barely a ripple in the communal pond. Their voice was heard mostly by those who already subscribed to their ideas. They were easily sidelined.

Blogs have changed that. Now, Jewish “bosses” like Abe Foxman (ADL) or Jack Rosen (AJCongress) can be held up to immediate public scrutiny. When Foxman refused to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, the Jewish press and bloggers took him to task and he backed down. When JTA published a false ZOA claim that Desmond Tutu equated Israel with Hitler, Jewish Voice for Peace’s Muzzlewatch brought the fraud to the Jewish community’s attention forcing JTA to correct the record. When a Minneapolis Jewish community staff member advised a local college that Tutu was anti-Israel and the college rescinded a speaking invitation, Muzzlewatch was again able to lead the debate causing the college to back down. None of this would have happened before blogs.

Even more importantly, when Israeli policy goes off the rails as it did during the Lebanon war, peace bloggers published almost minute by minute coverage documenting the carnage and folly of the military-political decisions that informed conflict. Perhaps for the first time in human history bloggers on both sides of a war could not only read the words of those on the other side, they could communicate with the “enemy” almost in real time. I think this had a tremendous impact on blog readers because reading the unfiltered suffering of your enemy had the effect of breaking down the will to fight on both sides.

Within Israel and the American Jewish community, there was a consensus in favor of the war while it raged. Not so in the blogosphere where there was a furious debate pro and con. But what was most important to me was that progressive bloggers had a place to speak truth to power during those dark days. We could rail against the blindness, callousness and lies emanating from the IDF spokespeople and politicians. No one could pull the plug on us. And while it is true that we may not have been feared or even noticed by the Halutzes and Olmerts of this world, we could have our say and people listened.

I am not the first to note that blogs have democratized communication and political debate. But this is especially true in the formerly top-down structure of the Jewish communal hierarchy. Malcolm Hoenlein doesn’t give me marching orders. Neither does AIPAC. I march to my own drummer. And that is the beauty of the blog.

Not that all’s always well in the Jewish blog world. Along with this democratization of the means of communication has come a maelstrom of conflicting opinions. The breaking down of communal consensus has caused a breakdown of civility and an accompanying barrage of hate, invective, and verbal assault. Just look at the Haaretz, Jerusalem Post or Ynet talkbacks if you want to see evidence of such chaos. And the talkbacks are moderated! Imagine if they weren’t.

There has also been a steep rise in partisanship. More radical, violent and racist ideas get attention than ever did in the past. Reasoned debate has almost become a thing of the past. Instead, people go for the jugular. I have been unsuccessfully sued for libel for calling militant pro-Israel activist Rachel Neuwirth a “Kahanist.” The owner of another far-right site, Masada2000, started a mock blog in my name which included pornographic references and a stolen image of my son and me baking cookies to which a caption was added claiming we were making Palestinian suicide bombs. Masada2000’s owner also threatened me with genital mutilation. Members of the Kahanist Jewish Task Force website wished that I would get cancer of the rectum.

It would be wrong to see these merely as aberrant Jewish expressions or the actions of lone troubled individuals (though they might be that). For the internet has given wingnuts a huge megaphone with which to amplify such hate and bring it into the mainstream.

Over the past few months, an anonymous right-wing hoax e mail campaign flooded the inboxes of American Jews. It sought to portray Barack Obama as a stealth Muslim presidential candidate who would bring the views of Al Qaeda into the White House. In a close Democratic primary and general election, these types of smears don’t have to have much credibility nor do they have to. All they have to do is instill fear and doubt into the minds of a relatively small group of voters in order to have a critical effect on the elections. While Goebbels championed the “big lie” these slandermeisters work by planting small seeds of doubt in the minds of many.

Blogs can represent the highest values and ideals of Jewish tradition. And they can also represent the basest emotions lurking in the Jewish breast. Often they are somewhere in between. But there is no going back to the days of yesteryear.

I work to improve the Jewish blogosphere by encouraging more liberal voices to join the debate. We need more prominent communal figures and even journalists to understand the power of blogs and begin writing their own. Some like Leonard Fein, Bernard Avishai and Daniel Levy have already done so. But there is room for much more. And I’m hoping that the mainstream media both in Israel and America will expand their interest in blogs and incorporate what we have to say into their reporting.

Seattle’s JTNews Covers Neuwirth v. Silverstein

Thursday, December 20th, 2007

Seattle’s Jewish paper has written a long story about my legal battle with Rachel Neuwirth. The nice thing about the article is that it gives Neuwirth’s attorney all the rope he wants to hang himself and his client. I don’t know about you but I’m not used to hearing lawyers use four letter words in defending their clients:

“She never threw any mud at him, she was never responsible for things that he wanted to blame on her, and she so testified and he couldn’t prove to the contrary,” said Charles L. Fonarow, Neuwirth’s attorney. “The only thing she ever did was try and talk to the guy, and for that he just let loose all his shit.”

Not quite sure what he’s referring to here. Neuwirth did call the house one Sunday morning at 7:30 AM waking my wife and asking for me. I didn’t speak to her and wrote in my blog that I never wanted to hear from her again and haven’t. She used to post insulting comments at this blog using pseudonyms but doesn’t do that anymore either. So not sure what he means by “trying to talk to the guy” unless hurling insults is considering trying to talk to me.

In further remarks, Fonarow really exposes the weakness of Neuwirth’s case:

“Even though Rabbi Seidler-Feller, as a result of the settlement, admitted full responsibility and that she didn’t provoke the attack at all, Silverstein nevertheless calls her a liar and says that he doesn’t believe what Seidler-Feller has admitted,” Fonarow said. Silverstein’s original comments “may be a tad short of defaming her, but not much, and then he goes on to start committing the acts, which were clearly defamatory, for which we sued.

“A Kahanist is a terrorist, and however you slice it, it’s a defamatory remark.”

First, it should be noted that I never called Neuwirth a liar in this context. I merely said that given the facts as Seidler Feller and other witnesses stated them just after the incident; and her version of the event, I chose not to believe her version and to believe another. The problem with Fonarow and with so many right-wing ideologues is that they create huge ellipses in the arguments of their opponents in which they leap from a fact to an interpretation of the fact which has no relation to the original fact. So because I choose not to believe her I’ve called her a liar. Precision has never been a hallmark of partisan ideologues anywhere.

But the money quote here is the last line. Of course a Kahanist is not necessarily a terrorist. There are Kahanists like Baruch Goldberg, Irv Rubin and Meir Kahane himself who were terrorists. There are Kahanists who are not terrorists. Calling someone a Kahanist may mean calling them a racist, but it doesn’t mean calling them someone who personally commits acts of violence, which is what a terrorist is. This is where Neuwirth’s case collapses.

Fonarow repeats the Neuwirth-Campus Watch claim that Joel Beinin lied when claimed she made a death threat against him:

Fonarow said any allegation that Neuwirth’s message was a death threat was a lie.

“She leaves him a message that in effect, said, in the same tone, you can’t be saying [anti-Israel statements] because the Jews have to be vigilant at all times,” Fonarow said. “Look what they did to David [sic] Pearl, and look what Hitler did, and he takes that as a death threat, which is preposterous.”

Somebody oughta tell Mr. Fonarow that he was referring to Daniel Pearl, not David. But hey, what’s a little inaccuracy among friends?

About that death threat, here’s what I’ve written earlier on this:

Neuwirth DID call him a kapo and other vulgar demeaning terms. She likened him to Daniel Pearl and said that Beinin might meet the same fate as a traitor to his people. She noted that Hitler took care of those who were traitors first (not sure what this means exactly). Beinin felt so disturbed by the content of her calls that he called the police. The report quotes verbatim from her calls and documents the threat.

Again, I’ll let my readers be the judge: death threat or not? I wish I could post the police report here and quote from it verbatim. But I’ve been asked not to do so and I won’t.

Fonarow based his entire case on the claim that because Rachel Neuwirth is a private party and not a public figure, he didn’t have to show actual malice on my part to prove libel. Since the judge threw out the “private party” claim, then Fonarow would’ve actually had to prove in his filing that I DID show malice. But he didn’t even make such a claim. And in an appeal he can’t change his argument, since the appeals court only judges the evidence and arguments of the original case—though he tries to in the following passage:

Fonarow took issue with Judge Reid’s assertations and suggested that a “trier of fact” would find actual malice in Silverstein’s postings.

“She’s a private person,” he said. “She makes her money selling real estate even though she likes to write a lot of articles because she’s so pro-Jewish…. The only area you can say [falls] under the statute is that she was trying to try to talk to [Silverstein] about a matter that I guess could be considered by the courts to be a subject of public debate.

“As far as I’m concerned there was actual malice,” he added. “If you look at all the other things that he said, in blog after blog after blog, there’s evidence of actual malice even though the trial judge dismissed it as falling short.”

Astonishingly, Neuwirth chose not to talk to Joel Magalnick. That’s gotta be a first. I suppose she thought it possible that my local paper might write less than flatteringly about her. She probably made the right decision, though I would’ve enjoyed hearing more from her.

Magalnick also interviewed the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s senior attorney, who wrote approvingly of Judge Reid’s decision to toss the case:

But Fred von Lohman, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which champions free speech in the digital arena, said this case was precisely why California adopted the SLAPP statute.

“By publishing this on a blog, [Silverstein] was engaging in precisely the kind of protected speech the California SLAPP statute was written to protect,” von Lohman said. “This is really the tip of a much larger iceberg, because as more and more political speech and commentary goes online, it’s inevitable that there will be more need to clarify that the First Amendment protection applies to bloggers just like they apply to traditional pamphleteers.”

On appeal, added von Lohman, if Neuwirth’s case fails again, it will set precedent in California that other courts will need to pay attention to…

“There are lots of things about this case that are pretty standard about First Amendment law,” he said. “The thing that is different is that we don’t have the standard applied to blogs.”

We have high hopes that EFF will join in our appeal (that is, if Neuwirth is foolish enough to file which we have every reason to believe she will).

Neuwirth Loses Libel Case Against Tikun Olam

Wednesday, November 28th, 2007

Tonight is not a good night for Rachel Neuwirth. Like Casey at the bat, she took a mighty swing & like Casey she struck out.

She sued me for libel in Los Angeles Superior Court because I called her a “Kahanist swine.” Her claim was that this was the same as claiming she was a Jewish terrorist since Kahane Chai, Meir Kahane’s Israeli political party, is designated by the U.S. Treasury Department as a terrorist organization.


Her attorney, Charles Fonarow, told my attorneys that her case was a “slam dunk.” Seems Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Reid had a different idea. It’s also important to note that Judge Reid is no activist liberal judge. He teaches law at Pepperdine University law school where Kenneth Starr is the dean. He’s a law and order conservative and he understood the principles of free blog speech that were involved in this case. He understood that calling someone a Kahanist swine, while not perhaps the most refined turn of phrase in the world, is permitted in the context of public discourse on an issue of great civic importance.

We won the case with an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) motion under which the defendant must prove that his speech was made in a public arena and furthered a public good and that the plaintiff was a public figure. Rachel’s key argument was that she is a private figure (she argued that she was merely a real estate agent) and the my blog was a private forum (because I “controlled” it), all of which are patently false since she herself calls herself an “internationally respected journalist” in her online bio. That my blog is a public forum is also patently obvious as 250,000 unique visitors each year indicate. And I no more ‘control’ the 6,000 comments published on my blog than I control the entire web.

One of the beauties of the SLAPP motion is that the losing plaintiff must pay defendant’s reasonable court costs. This system was purposely designed to inhibit well-heeled individuals from bringing frivolous lawsuits against whistle blowers and other do-gooders. As the judge’s ruling states:

These lawsuits are generally brought to chill the valid exercise of constitutional rights. A SLAPP suit lacks merit and will achieve its objective if it depletes the defendant’s resources or energy because the aim is not to win but to detract the defendant from his or her objective. [An anti-SLAPP motion] is a procedural remedy to dispose of such suits expeditiously and thereby protect defendants’ free exercise of First Amendment rights on matters of public interest

So Rachel will have to dip into her savings to pay for our legal bills. I say “ours” since Rachel figured she’d kill two “kapo” birds with one stone by also including Joel Beinin in her suit. No doubt Joel is a figure who particularly irks her since he holds a distinguished academic position at Stanford University. Unfortunately, she struck out as her suit against Beinin failed as well.

The judge understood the important of protecting speech on an issue as critical and controversial as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and agreed that Neuwirth was merely trying to stifle speech she disagreed with–rather than bringing a serious charge of libel.

He also raised an importance point which even I hadn’t considered in preparing my defense. Since truth is a defense in libel suits why didn’t she argue that the portion of my statement in which I called her a “Kahanist” was false? I think we could’ve made a good case against her if she’d raised this defense since her views, like Kahane’s, are so virulently anti-Arab. But she never even made the claim.

Another good point that he raised was that just as no reasonable reader would believe I was calling her a literal “swine,” so no reasonable reader would believe I was calling her a literal Kahanist “terrorist.”

Neuwirth’s claim against Joel Beinin involved a statement he made in the Alef discussion group informing members that she had made a death threat against him. She, along with Campus Watch, have claimed that this is a lie. Well, now I have the police report in front of me from the Stanford University Department of Public Safety reported (case IR 03 265 0181) on September 22, 2003. Beinin is so weary of this matter that he expressly asked me not to publish the report details here. But suffice it to say that Neuwirth DID call him a kapo and other vulgar demeaning terms. She likened him to Daniel Pearl and said that Beinin might meet the same fate as a traitor to his people. She noted that Hitler took care of those who were traitors first (not sure what this means exactly). Beinin felt so disturbed by the content of her calls that he called the police. The report quotes verbatim from her calls and documents the threat.

Now, I want to address the hazirfleisch with the unlikely name of “Cinnamon Stillwell” at Campus Watch who called Beinin a liar. During the lawsuit I could not speak of this matter on advice of counsel. But now the world can see who lied and who told the truth.

My attorney tells me that Neuwirth appeared quite upset at the end of the hearing. Her attorney told Judge Reid that he planned to appeal his decision to the State Court of Appeals. They were apparently both upset that the ‘slam’ didn’t ‘dunk.’ But the fact that the judge wrote a ten-page, intensively-researched opinion shows that the judge attached considerable importance both to the case and to his decision. It’s hard to believe that a higher court would rule against Judge Reid in this matter unless he made a serious error. And the very fact of the length of the brief and the amount of effort he lavished on it argues against that possibility.

Though I do not wish for an appeal, I would welcome one for one reason only. The higher this case goes, if affirmed, the more important a precedent it becomes in California jurisprudence. Protecting the rights of those who debate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a matter worth fighting for and worthy of judicial affirmation.

Finally, I’d like to thank my pro bono legal team from Dewey & LeBoeuf. They are heroes to me. They took this on out of a commitment to protect First Amendment rights and with little prospect of financial remuneration. They believed in my right to speak out forcefully about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Unfortunately, others have threatened me with similar lawsuits in the past and perhaps some will do so in future. I think we have taken a stand that such intimidation will be met with a firm defense of my First Amendment rights and those of all bloggers.