Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

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 ‘maariv’

Shelly Adelson Buys Himself a Newspaper and a Government

Monday, December 28th, 2009
Shelly Adelson, gambling mogul and Bibi Netanyahu patron

Shelly Adelson, gambling mogul and Bibi Netanyahu sugar daddy

I’ve written here a number of times about the pernicious influence Sheldon Adelson wields both in Israeli journalism and politics through his billions spent lavishly to fund far-right causes like the Shalem Center and the free daily, Yisrael HaYom (widely and derisively known as Bibiton–roughly translated as “Bibi’s rag”).  Adelson, who made his billions off the misery of gambling addicts, loves Bibi and spent immense amounts ensuring he became prime minister and now that he is, that he stays so.  He founded from scratch Yisrael HaYom, whose politics are a neocon cross between the Daily News, Wall Street Journal and Jerusalem Post.  He spent money like it was going out of style, recruiting major journalists who worked for other papers.  Most importantly, the newstand price was right–nothing.

Exactly what one would expect to happen did: the circulation of the other Israeli tabloids, Yediot Achronot and especially the right-wing Maariv, plummeted.  Since they actually operate on an economic model and need to make a profit to survive, they couldn’t afford to match Yisrael HaYom’s rock bottom price.

In a battle to stay alive, Maariv enlisted Knesset members to draft a law which essentially would end Adelson’s support for Yisrael HaYom by requiring that all Israeli newspapers have Israeli ownership.  I’m guessing that even if this bill passed that Adelson, who must retain a team of crack attorneys for just this eventuality, would figure out a way to co-opt an Israeli to be his front-man owner.

The point is, as much as I detest Adelson and his Israeli vanity publication, this can’t be the way to go about addressing this issue.  The nativist prejudice inherent in it are offensive and objectionable.  If you believe as I do that Adelson has purchased not only a newspaper, but a virtual monopoly on political discourse through his billions, there should be a way to counter this.  Perhaps you could limit the amount an individual owner could sink into his paper without earning a legitimate return.  Or you could define newspapers that do not have an economic model in a different legal category than one that does–and then offer public funds to the legitimate newspapers to place them on a more even playing field.

I realize that each of my suggestions probably has weaknesses of its own.  But I’m sure a creative legal mind should come up with a less offensive proposal than this one.  Can it really be in Israel’s best interests to have this Citizen Kane/William Randolph Hearst wannabe peeling off wads of shekel notes to any Israeli newspaper reader or pol who will belly up to the bar?

Thanks to Didi Remez for offering us the fulsome, sycophantic praises of Adelson’s Israeli and American Jewish toadies who are also opposing the Knesset bill: Natan Sharansky, Abe Foxman and Alan Dershowitz.  Didi acutely notes that Sharansky, who frames his opposition in principled democratic terms, is deeply beholden financially to Adelson, who is the major backer of the Shalem Center, where the right-wing Israeli pol plays host to a neocon think tank.  Abe Foxman, a “good friend” of Adelson who’s flown on the latter’s corporate jet, warns Israel “don’t hurt American Jews.”  As if Israel isn’t a sovereign nation allowed to determine its own internal policies, even if they inconvenience Abe’s special chums.

I reserve my final and most derisive comments for Der Dersh who said:

“I am not sure that this bill is constitutional,” Dershowitz said…

Say it ain’t so, Al.  Israel?  A constitution?  This is the guy who puffs up his bio with accolades like ““one of [the United State's] ‘most distinguished defenders of individual rights…’”  Yet this defender of human rights neglects to remember that Israel has no constitution.  In fact, if Israel had a constitution it might actually be the democracy that shills like Dersh claim it is.  Dershowitz clearly not only doesn’t know Israel has none, he doesn’t really care about the very rights such a constitution would protect.  He cares only for Jewish rights.  You’ll never hear this man mouth a word on behalf of Israeli Palestinian citizens’ rights.  That’s because Dershowitz really sees Israel as an ethnocracy in which Jewish rights predominate.  He also, being the great human rights advocate he is, is fully prepared for Israel’s minority community to remain second-class citizens in a Jewish supremacist state.

Didi closes with this incisive critique of Dershowitz’s blind spot when it comes to the Israeli power elite:

The ease with which Dershowitz chooses to tether his reputation to financial interests, just because they share his political views, is testament to how pro-Israeli advocacy has warped the intellectual standards of some Jewish-Americans.

This brings to mind that disgusting video shot by Adalah-NY, showing Der Dersh exiting Lev Leviev’s Madison Avenue jewelry emporium with a shopping bag held triumphantly aloft.  Leviev is the darling and mega-funder of Chabad, oppressor of poor southern African miners who produce his baubles, and builder of illegal West Bank settlements.  Clearly, Dershowitz’s alliances are with the monied pro-Israel elite like Leviev and Adelson.  He has long since abandoned any pretext of supporting the rights and needs of the little man in Israel.

Maariv Sinks into Gutter, Publishes Obama’s Kotel Note

Thursday, July 31st, 2008

This incident happened while I was visiting my brother in Oregon and I didn’t find out about it till my return, when I read an e mail from reader Dan Sniderman, who pointed me to this post at The Field Negro. Dan and I both agree that it was a disgrace for Maariv to publish Obama’s personal petek, placed reverentially by him among the stones of the Kotel.

Maariv's journalistic 'coup'

Maariv's journalistic 'coup'

Apparently, even yeshiva bochers at the Kotel have become the equivalent of Jewish paparazzi because one stalked Obama, searched through other p’takim till he found Obama’s and then shopped it to Yediot and Maariv, among others.  It reminds me of desperate celebrity stalkers who rummage through stars’ trash for something salacious enough to be salable to the tabloid press.  Thankfully, it was beneath Yediot’s dignity to bite on this journalistic fish. But Maariv, having no scruples to speak of, gobbled the morsel up and regurgitated it for its readers.

What I find especially repellant about Maariv’s “defense” of its actions are the lies and Judaic supremacism that characterized its response.  This is how the Jerusalem Post reported the story:

…A Ma’ariv spokesman said that “Barack Obama’s note was approved for publication in the international media even before he put in the Kotel, a short time after he wrote it at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. In any case, since Obama is not a Jew, publishing the note does not constitute an infringement on his right to privacy.”

Obama’s campaign…made clear that the campaign hadn’t approved the publication of any kind of prayer note.

“Prayer notes at the Wall should remain private,” a campaign aide said.

The paper added that is was “pleased” with its “journalistic accomplishment.”

Either the Maariv spokesperson was woefully misinformed about the Obama note being approved for publication or he was simply lying with impunity.  Either possibility is simply disgraceful journalistic practice.

I also find especially noxious the idea that since Obama is Christian and therefore not fulfilling any religious commandment in praying at the Kotel, that stealing his petek is somehow permissible.  Have we Jews come to the point that we justify unethical behavior by denying that non-Jews have rights when they enter our holy sites?

In addition, you know that the thief also justified his actions to himself using the same rhetoric: it’s not theft since Obama isn’t Jewish and victimizing a goy is permissible.  If that doesn’t bring Orthodox Judaism, or at least this particular practitioner of it, into disrepute I don’t know what will.

Gershom Gorenberg notes that a New Republic writer typically attempted to besmirch Obama’s alleged involvement in this episode only to find yet another Maariv spokesperson who denied the first spokesperson quoted in the Jerusalem Post, existed:

…The accusation [that the Obama campaign released the note] is “completely false,” and that he has no idea who these papers were quoting from Ma’ariv. “No official spokesman for Ma’ariv told this to any of the papers.”

You’ll note the phrase “no official spokesperson.”  That provides a loophole big enough to drive a truck through since I presume they would claim someone speaking off the record was not an official spokesperson.  But does Maaariv seriously expect us to believe that the Post simply made up the quotation?

I really like this laugher of a phrase from TNR’s blogger describing Maariv:

Though Ma’ariv is one of Israel’s most prominent newspapers, there is certainly reason to question its motives regarding this story…

There are a lot of adjectives I’d use to describe Maariv, but “most prominent” would not be one of them: ’scurrilous’ perhaps, ’slutty,’ ‘tabloid journalism.’  They all fit.  But not “most prominent.”  The fact that someone at TNR considers Maariv so tells you a lot about TNR and its standards.

Gaza: Stop the Madness

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008

Gaza, how doth Israel violate international law and the moral obligations of nations in punishing thee? Let me count the ways.


Is this any way to conduct a national policy? You bet it isn’t. How is shutting down the power station supplying Gaza civilians with their electricity a legitimate policy responding to the Qassam attacks? How is shutting down the pumps that bring water to these same civilians going to prevent rockets from landing in Sderot? How does preventing Gazans from being able to take a dump in their own bathrooms increase the security of Israelis under barrage? How does shutting down hospitals treating dialysis patients and premature babies do anything for peace?

Of course it doesn’t. Olmert and Barak know this. So they personify the definition of the mad man: someone who persists in doing something repetitively when it has failed the first time, in the hope that it will somehow succeed the next. Olmert and his government may be prepared to commit crimes against humanity in Gaza, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the world should stand by silently. The Europeans and God help us even Condi Rice need to raise their voices to stop this madness. We remember how long it took for her to signal a halt to the mayhem in Lebanon after it was clear that Israel could not win. How many people died until she summoned the courage or sanity to say “Enough?” What will it take to bring her to her senses once again regarding Gaza?

Shlomo Gazit, former IDF general and expert analyst of the I-P conflict, writes in Maariv of the need to take a new tack (thanks to Sol Salbe for translating from Hebrew). Gazit words are not new. He’s said something like this before. But they take on new urgency amid the current insanity:

…The combination of the military measures and the siege that we are imposing on the 1.5 million residents of the Gaza Strip [is] simply not delivering the goods. The barrage of Qassam rockets on Sderot…is steadily intensifying. The captains of our ship of state…are aware that we cannot go on like this and that a different policy is required.

The Hamas leadership openly proclaims its willingness to enter into a long-term hudna, or truce. Israel says it is also willing to do so. So how come we are in no way achieving it? The stumbling block is on the Israeli side – Israel is unwilling to talk to Hamas.

Gazit proposes negotiating with Hamas to stop the Qassam firing either directly or through an intermediary such as Egypt. The goal would be a mutual ceasefire on both sides. Gazit’s way is the only way. Well, there is always the current path. But this way lies madness. Unless the world wants to see Israel committing national hara kiri in front of its eyes and taking the Gazans along with them, they have an imperative duty to speak out and end the madness.

The Associated Press just reported that tens of thousands of Gazans poured across the Egyptian border after masked militants destroyed most of the border fence outside Rafah. Why did they do it?

Masked gunmen destroyed about two-thirds of the seven-mile-long metal wall separating the Gaza Strip from Egypt in the town of Rafah and tens of thousands of Palestinians poured across the border to buy supplies made scarce by an Israeli blockade of the impoverished territory…

An off-duty Hamas security officer who identified himself as Abdel Rahman, 29, said this was his first time out of Gaza. ”I can smell the freedom,” he said. ”We need no border after today.”

Why did they do it? To buy bread for their children. To buy cooking oil to feed their families; medicine for their sick. To buy a cigarette. Unfortunately those tens of thousands of Gazans can’t pour out of Gaza to swamp downtown Ashkelon. If they could, Israelis would realize much quicker that they need to do something to end the suffering.

A day or so ago the IAF destroyed an empty Hamas ministry building in Gaza. This was somehow supposed to be a message to Hamas that would convince them to bend to Israel’s will. The former’s intelligence was so faulty that they neglected to account for the fact that there was a wedding hall next door and killed a mother and child in the process.

The claim by Israeli spokespeople that it will not let its blockade cause a humanitarian crisis is laughable in a macabre sort of way. How would they know what it’s like to be in Gaza now and whether or not their punishments constitute a humanitarian crisis? Are they without electricity in their Israeli homes? Without water? Have they visited any Gazans lately to examine their living conditions?

It’s all sheer madness.

Abbas to Dahlan’s Men During Gaza Uprising: ‘Slaughter Them’

Thursday, September 20th, 2007

Thanks to Sol Salbe, intrepid Israel media hound, who discovered this damning story and video in Maariv (Hebrew only). Here is Sol’s description and synopsis of the article:

For those who peddle the view that the Hamas coup in Gaza was unprovoked this is embarrassing. As Ma’ariv explains “Abu Mazen instructed his general: ‘Slaughter them.’”

Amit Cohen reports: “The clip apparently shows a meeting in Abu-Mazen’s office in Gaza in which members of the preventive security force identified with Muhammad Dahlan participated. Upon meeting the older gentleman dressed in black uniform, Abu Mazen asks him : “Are you the head of the preventive security force?” When the answer is in the affirmative Abu-Mazen says one word: “Slaughter [them].”

Cohen does not have a problem in guessing who the target was-–Hamas.

Let’s give Maariv and Hamas the benefit of the doubt and accept the claim that this video (it’s really the audio that is at issue) is authentic. If so, we and the U.S. government should be re-examining into just what kind of Fatah basket we’ve thrown all our eggs. And we should also re-examine the almost universal condemnation sounded about Hamas’ takeover of Gaza. Hamas itself said that they were acting to pre-empt a Fatah coup. Whether or not that was justification after the fact, having this video not only makes Abbas out to be a bloodthirsty villain; it also makes him look even more ineffectual than he already does. He’s like the cinematic tinpot dictator reviewing all the troops before the climatic battle. In the next scene you see all of them fleeing for their lives, the words of the generalissimo long forgotten. That’s pretty much what happened to Dahlan’s hated troops during the fighting. They scattered like flies, hardly putting up a fight. Based on that performance I’m not optimistic that Fatah can do much better in the West Bank, where their strength supposedly lies.

And we should keep in mind that this is the same Abbas to whom Bush, the Europeans, and even the Israelis to the extent that they do trust him–have bound their fate. A man who is prepared to slaughter his supposed brothers. It does make you wonder.

Now a word about authenticity. It crossed my mind that altering the audio would be incredibly easy. I don’t know how authentic this item is. It’s certainly in Hamas’ interest to portray Fatah as bloodthirsty thugs. So for that reason alone, the video shouldn’t be accepted at face value until verified. But at least one Palestinian I know has authenticated that the voice is Abbas’.

UPDATE: I contacted Amit Cohen who reported this story and he graciously replied with the background information on the video which helps convince me it’s highly likely to be authentic:

The video was actually released by Hamas and was aired on their satellite TV in Gaza. I believe they confiscated it when they conquered Gaza 3 months ago.

I think the video is authentic. I spoke with source within the Fateh and they recognized the officers in the meeting:

1. The first guy, with the moustache, is an officer in the PSO (preventative security organization).

2. The older man, wearing a black uniform, was the head of the PSO “executive force”. He’s from Abu Zuaitar Family in Gaza. His alias is Sinbad.

It looks like the video was taking during a meeting between Abu Mazen and the PSO leadership in Gaza, before Hamas tookover.

When I got the video, I contacted Abu Mazen’s office for a response. I spoke with one of his assistants several times. I even sent him the video and made sure he got it. However, right after he got the movie, he screened my calls and didn’t get back to me…

If Abbas was given a chance to deny the authenticity of the video and chose not to–what does that tell you?

Maariv on Syria Attack

Sunday, September 16th, 2007

Thanks to M.J. Rosenberg for offering translations of Maariv stories about Israel’s Syrian attack. I offer these stories without endorsement of any particular views expressed since Maariv is Israel’s farthest right daily. My heart does go out to the Israeli journalists prevented from doing their jobs in a supposed democracy by draconian military censorship. You can read their frustration (though blaming Robert Gates for it seems misplaced) in one of the stories below:

THE IDF WANTS NEGOTIATIONS WITH SYRIA TO BEGIN IMMEDIATELY

Ma’ariv (p. 5) by Amir Rappaport –
1. The Surprise

The question of holding talks with Syria has been a contentious issue among senior security establishment officials for years already. Four prime ministers have already tried and failed, and then suddenly, with this in the backdrop, a surprise crops up: even when tensions between Israel and Syria are perceived to be at their highest given the attack on Syrian soil that was ascribed to the IDF, there are some security officials who clearly call for a resumption of the political talks between the two countries. Security officials who responded to questions on the matter before Rosh Hashanah said that Israel had a clear interest in engaging in peace negotiations with Syria, even if they do not produce results.

The position maintained by the IDF Intelligence Branch still supports negotiations with the Syrians, despite the most recent developments. There are two leading positions held by IDF Intelligence Branch officials. The first, which is put forward by IDF Intelligence Research Department Director Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz, is based on the working assumption that the Syrians, their accelerated pace of armament notwithstanding, are truly interested in signing a peace treaty with Israel.

Alternatively, Director of Military Intelligence Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin subscribes to an opposing point of view and believes that it is most likely that the Syrians are not interested in making peace. Yadlin adduces the fact that the Syrians have insisted that the talks be held solely with American mediation rather than directly, and continue incessantly to permit terrorist organizations to operate on their soil. With that having been said, Yadlin believes that negotiations with Syria are a goal towards which Israel should aspire since the gains of negotiations outweigh the damage caused by them and they could serve as a means of defusing the tensions between Israel and Syria.

This belief is maintained outside the IDF Intelligence Branch as well. There have been a number of security officials who said recently that “now of all times it is especially important to engage in negotiations, which will reduce greatly the danger of deterioration into war.”

Wouldn’t you think that they’d have thought of this BEFORE violating Syrian sovereignty and blowing one of their military installations to kingdom come? Seems mighty foolish for the Israeli spooks to go to Assad and say: “Umm, Mr. President, let’s just forget about what happened last week and start over–shall we?”

2. The Picture Becomes Clearer

Despite the voices calling for negotiations with Syria, it is clear to all the security officials that there is no practical possibility of such negotiations being held with Syria in the near future. On the contrary. Israel has been on a heightened state of alert ever since the Syrian statement about the Israeli operation in Syrian territory. This heightened state of alert remained in place throughout the Rosh Hashanah holiday and there are no signs that it is going to change any time soon.

Meanwhile, official Israel has continued to maintain a strict silence and not to say a word in response to the allegations about an operation. The world media, alternatively, hasn’t stopped discussing the issue, and the numerous details that were published by the foreign media over the holiday appear to provide a rather clear picture of what happened. If the reports are correct, one can easily say that the operation that was carried out was one of the most dangerous and most brilliant in the annals of IDF history. Every operation 300 kilometers away from Israeli soil is very dangerous, all the more so when ground troops were also involved in the operation in addition to the Air Force, as some of the foreign media reported.

In reading this one should keep in mind that the source is Maariv, Israel’s most right-wing daily (though not as right-wing as the Washington Times or New York Post). I doubt it was the most dangerous nor the most brilliant, but depending on what they really hit it might’ve also been the most incendiary; something akin to the Tonkin Gulf incident.

3. The Nuclear Plant

At the center of the wave of recent reports is the issue of the Syrian nuclear program. Acting deputy assistant secretary of state for nuclear nonproliferation policy and negotiations, Andrew Semmel, said in this context on Friday that Syria had formed covert ties with suppliers in order to obtain nuclear equipment. This was the first time in which a Western official formally ascribed “nuclear” ambitions to Syria, after years in which Western espionage agents believed that President Assad ascribed to achieve strategic parity with Israel by means of nuclear weapons. This policy of Bashar Assad is in stark opposition to the one pursued by his father, Hafez Assad, who equipped Syria with a tremendous store of chemical weapons but devoted no effort or time to acquiring nuclear weapons.

Israel and the United States are afraid that components that are liable to be used in the production of nuclear weapons and knowledgeable experts from North Korea and Pakistan are working in a number of countries with the goal of marketing their skills and know-how. The assessment is that Iran, whose nuclear program has been a focal point of attention for a number of years, is not the only country.

Note how a claimed nuclear program which no credible source has proven or documented in any authoritative way has become an incontrovertible fact.

4. A Question of Timing

According to the numerous foreign reports, one can ask whether the timing of the Israeli attack on a Syrian installation that was alleged to have been “nuclear” was indeed ideal. Was the attack (if it was carried out) carried out prematurely? Can Israel afford to attack again in the event that the Syrians should rebuild the installation, which foreign reports say was damaged, and equip themselves anew with suspicious substances?

5. The Syrian Response

With all that having been said, before an answer is given to all of the above questions, the most important and troubling question is what the Syrians’ reaction is going to be. Every public statement by senior officials in Damascus that Syria will respond obliges the Syrian leadership more and more and is liable to prompt Bashar Assad to order the execution of a revenge operation as a way of preserving his country’s honor.

With that being the case, in order to keep the blow to Syria’s honor as small as possible, the continued Israeli reticence, at least formally, is welcome.

For any Israeli to assume that there will not be a dear and savage price to pay for this action would be the height of foolishness.

ISRAEL UPGRADES ARROW MISSILE TO MEET NUCLEAR THREAT

Yedioth Ahronoth (p. 4) by Aryeh Egozi — Israel is currently completing the plans for the newest anti-ballistic missile, the Arrow 3, which will provide defense against the Iranian and Syrian chemical warheads and their future nuclear warheads.

The Syrians have improved the precision of the Scud B and D missiles that they bought from North Korea and the warheads that can be filled with chemical weapons. The warhead in question is a canister that is installed on the nose of the missile, which is then equipped with a mechanism that results in its explosion just a few kilometers above the ground. The explosion of its canister at this altitude is supposed to result in having the chemical contents of the warhead spread on as large an area as possible.

All of the weapons systems for defense against ballistic missiles-first and foremost the Arrow missile system-are designed to destroy the enemy warhead at as high an altitude as possible. As part of the testing, some of the dummy missiles that were used in Arrow missile experiments were fitted with warheads that simulated chemical warheads.

USA, CALL THEM OFF

Ma’ariv (p. 5) by Jacky Hugi (news analysis) — Greetings, Mr. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

You would not want to be an Israeli journalist these days. You do not know what is happening here. The prime minister, the ministers, high-ranking officers-everyone has come back from a silent retreat. Nobody is throwing us the faintest hint about what happened in Syria that night. What hint? We cannot even get a bone here.

And now, right after we resigned ourselves to the fact that we will not be making a living from this story and the highest levels in Israel have proved to us that at a rare moment it, too, is capable of being silent, along come your people and, in a series of leaks from Washington, give the whole world their assessment of what happened on the night of September 6. Over the past few days, several anonymous officials under your command were the sole and abundant source of information for the world media about this incident. Every one of them provided details, each more fascinating than the last, about what supposedly happened there.

I understand, Mr. Gates, that you are dealing with Bashar Assad. After all, we also have a few generals and politicians who would like to see him fall. If we were in your place, we would also go crazy over a regime that stubbornly refuses to seal its borders, allowing armed men to infiltrate into Iraq and hit your troops. You are surely very frustrated to read the information that streams to you about the assistance that the Syrians are providing the factions in Iraq, which are massacring the best of your children. We see you inviting the whole world to the peace summit in November and enjoying squeezing vain entreaties for an invitation from the Syrians.

But, Mr. Secretary, you must understand what a delay mechanism we are sitting on here in the Middle East. The situation is too volatile to be made into a cushion for experiments on human beings. The level of trust between Israel and Syria is just about level with the ground. Each country suspects that the other is plotting war against it.

But despite everything, Bashar is still on Olmert’s side. He is also interested in turning down the flame, calming the region and getting back to business as usual. But your people are not letting him. They are eager to embarrass him in front of the whole world. And over here, we are afraid that if Assad is embarrassed too much, he will be forced to respond. That is our problem, Mr. Gates.

Not that we have lost our curiosity. On the contrary. We thirst for information about this incident. But here and in Syria there are millions of families whose children’s lives are more precious to them and who would not like to see rockets flying over their heads again. Mr. Secretary, do us a favor-call them off.

The last passage of course is lamest of all and typical of certain Israeli journalists who seem to be utterly tone deaf when it comes to understanding what is really happening in their country and the outside world. To believe that having U.S. government sources talking about Israel’s attack on Syria is the sole irritant that could lead to a new Israel-Syria war is beyond ridiculous. Does this journalist think the Syrians would be content were it not for the U.S. Defense Department talking about the attack? But in all honesty, we have our own journalists here in the U.S. who don’t do much better.

Hamas and Israel ARE Talking

Tuesday, June 26th, 2007

No, they’re not talking officially through their governments. But they are talking via the media and what they have to say is interesting. As you will read below, the idea that the two sides are not talking is a fiction. In the article, Haaretz’s media critic discusses an interview with Israeli TV and the Hamas spokesperson, Ghazi Hamad. The idea that the two sides SHOULD NOT talk is almost criminal. The idea that the two sides will never talk is ridiculous. The sooner the better. Even after Hamas’ brutal performance in assuming violent control of Gaza, the idea that Israel and the U.S. can magically erase Hamas from the Palestinian polity is patently absurd.

Thanks to Sol Salbe for noting this Maariv story and to Mike Marshall of Occupation Magazine for translating it:

The Sane Face of Hamas

Ehud Asheri

The Gilad Shalit recording (hear it), special broadcasts on Channel 2

Who said we’re not talking to Hamas? Here is Channel 2 speaking freely with a spokesman of the enemy, Ghazi Hamad, and in Hebrew, too. Arad Nir and Ehud Ya’ari posed pointed questions to him and he sounded courteous and conciliatory: “The recording of Gilad Shalit is a positive sign. There is here an opportunity and the option to arrive at a deal.” The whole interview projected a sense of sane practicality and put the official government taboo against negotiating with Hamas in a surrealistic and absurd light, as was reflected afterwards in the declaration of Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (“Israel cannot talk to Hamas, which is not willing to recognise or speak with it.”). Never did an Israeli minister, and one from the moderate wing at that, sound so irrelevant.

The patriotic national Channel 2 would not have broadcast Hamad if it had thought this would constitute a divergence from the national consensus. The very fact of the interview should be a signal to the government that its official position does not pass the test of logic. All Israel understands that if your enemy is holding somebody you need, you have no choice but to talk to him. No doubt there will be those who will complain to the Second Broadcasting Authority that Channel 2 (and afterwards Channel 10 as well) gave Hamas legitimacy, a human face and a podium from which to address the Israeli public over the head of the government. But the interview proved that within Hamas too there is a pragmatic element that is willing to do business to promote its interests. We should so lucky that Hezbollah were willing to release a recording of the two [other] captives without anything in return. In such a case we would be happy to watch an interview, manipulative though it may be, with a Hezbollah representative…

All the official and unofficial commentators agreed that the words of Gilad Shalit were dictated to him and were evidently read from a written text. All of them (except for Ehud Ya’ari in the middle edition) ignored one word that the soldier said at the end of the statement, of his own free will. He asked one of his captors: “did you get it?” [one word in Hebrew – trans.] On the many repeat broadcasts on Channel 2 the last word was even cut from the recording, as if it had no importance. That is strange, because in my eyes it is very important. He is confident enough to address the man in front of him to verify that the recording had been properly done (Ya’ari inferred from this that previous recordings had not turned out well). A frightened man does not speak like that. That is how a man in relative control speaks, who is involved in what is going on and is aware of the implications of the matter. Considering the circumstances, there is something reassuring in that.

Bush to Chirac: “If Israel Attacked Iran…I Would Understand It”

Friday, November 3rd, 2006

You all knew that Bush believed this all along. And you half suspect that if Bush doesn’t have the “balls” to nuke the Eye-ranians that Israel will do it for him. Cheney has said as much. But you thought Bush would never dare reveal it publicly. Well, now via Maariv he has–sort of. This from the Jerusalem Post:

President Bush reportedly said he would “understand” a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran s nuclear sites.

Maariv, citing diplomatic sources, reported Thursday that French President Jacques Chirac discussed Iran s nuclear program with Bush on the sidelines of the recent UN summit.

Asked by Chirac if Israel could attack Iran to prevent it getting the bomb, Bush reportedly said: “We cannot rule this out. And if it were to happen, I would understand it.”

The report could not be independently confirmed.

Seems like the French, if they’re the source for this, have got it in for old George. Of course, this might come from a Cheney type who’s trying to rattle Iran’s cage a bit. Telling the Iranian anti-Semitic attack dog that Israel will do America’s dirty work and take out his reactor would be like putting fresh meat in front of a pitbull. Or the source might be someone like Dan Halutz or another well-placed hawk (such as Avigdor Lieberman) eager to drop the big one on those Eye-ranians.

And one does have to ask this question: perhaps Bush “would understand” an Israeli attack, but would the rest of the world–specifically the Arab world?? I DON’T THINK SO! Could we get any closer to a World War were this to happen? Of course, one must realize there are many Israelis, perhaps most, who firmly believe that there will be such an Iran-Israel war and that it is imperative to fight it. They are loons but this is what they believe. What I wonder, though, is why our president has to give them the rope to hang themselves by sanctioning such nitwitery.