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 ‘new-york-times’

About to Meet Bibi, Jews Say: ‘We’ve Got Your Back, Mr. President!’

Saturday, May 16th, 2009

ipf-nyt-adIsrael Policy Forum purchased a full page ad in today’s N.Y. Times that attempted to lay the groundwork for the upcoming first meeting between Barack Obama and Bibi Netanyahu in their new roles.  The text was remarkable not for what it said.  The sentiments repeated tried and true rhetoric from the American Jewish peace movement about a two state solution, ending violence, freezing settlements, promoting Israel-Syria negotiations, etc.  What was important was the headline:

Yes You Can, Mr President–achieve a two state solution…We Support You.

The message was clear.  We support our president, we don’t support the other guy.  It is an unheard of development in the Jewish community–to be forced to chose between an Israeli prime minister and a president.  For the Israel lobby there is never any difference between the two, because our interests as Americans and Israel’s interests are one and the same.

One unintended and important achievement of the new Israeli rightist government is to put the lie to this fake notion.  America’s interests are in a stable, peaceful Middle East.  An Israel that furthers this goal will share American interests.  An Israel that stubborning resists every American prescription for compromise as Bibi is doing, is headed for a fall.  And that fall can’t come soon enough.

Of course, we need to proceed to the next stage which is a demand to return to 1967 borders, sharing Jerusalem as capital of two states, and grappling with the Right of Return.  That is when the shit will really hit the fan and we’ll see what kind of resolve this president really has.  More power to him.  He’s got a tough row to hoe.

Gaza: N.Y. Times Editorial Page Finally ‘Gets It’

Friday, January 9th, 2009

Yesterday, I wrote a critical post about the N.Y. Times editorial page’s “coverage” of Gaza noting that no columns had been written that were critical of the Israeli offensive (David Grossman’s was mildly so) and that no Arabs or Palestinians had been allowed to weigh in on the debate.  Little did I know that today’s edition completely rectified those inadequacies.  I noted yesterday that Nicholas Kristof wrote a piece about Gaza.  Add to that Rashid Khalidi and Gideon Lichfield.  All were excellent and highly critical of Israeli policy.

Finally, there has been enough innocent blood shed for the Times to understand that Israel’s invasion is becoming a disaster.  And that the longer it continues the worse the catastrophe will become for Gaza, for Israel, for the region, and for U.S. interests in the region.

You know you’ve struck a chord when the Israel lobby complains as Abe Foxman does in the letters to the editor section.

Jerome Slater too has noticed the Times’ change of heart:

It’s almost beginning to look like the Times has experienced an epiphany.  Not only is there increasingly skeptical coverage from its news reporters, including some who until now have been largely uncritical of Israel, but look at today’s amazing Op-Ed page: three columns that are highly critical of Israel, including one by Rashid Khalidi!  In fact, the online edition has an additional column by Roger Cohen, who writes: “I have never previously felt so despondent about Israel, so shamed by its actions….”

I’m also noticing the hasbara type commenters have retreated from this blog.  Either they’ve found bigger fish to fry or they too have become conflicted enough about what’s going on that they no longer have the moral confidence in Israel’s position that they once did.

Tom Friedman Spoof: ‘Why Does the N.Y. Times Let People Like Me Make Fools of Themselves’

Thursday, November 13th, 2008

I was just reading through the Alternet site and came to a story about a mock version of the N.Y. Times.  Since I read the latter everyday and have done so for decades, that piqued my interest.  When I found the Tom Friedman spoof I was hooked.  This is a guy that every progressive loves to hate.  Full of himself.  Believes his own PR.  The word bloviate was coined with him in mind.  Not to mention that he’s so damn wrong about so many issues because of his rose-colored glasses.

DeBeers diamond ad spoof

DeBeers diamond ad spoof

The spoof takes Friedman to task for his support of the Iraq War, but his views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are equally mealy-mouthed and unconvincing (and I’ve written critiques of them).

So below I’ll quote some of the funnier passages.  Keep in mind that the premise of the N.Y. Times spoof is that it is July, 2009 and the U.S. has, as it did in Vietnam in 1973, withdrawn from Iraq:

The sudden outbreak of peace in Iraq has made me realize, among other things, one incontestable fact: I have no business holding a pen…I know, you’re thinking I’m going too far. I haven’t always been wrong about everything.

…People like me have no business posing as wise men, and, more importantly, that The New York Times has no business continuing to provide me with a national platform. In any case, I have made a decision: as of today, I will no longer write in this or any other newspaper. I will immediately desist from writing any more books about how it’s time for everyone to climb on board the globalization high-speed monorail to the future. I will keep my opinions to myself. (My wife suggested that I try not to even form opinions…).

I’m not trying to beat myself up here. I’ve done that plenty already, believe me — and my wife has done the rest! But I have one question: why are newspapers like The New York Times letting people like me make fools of themselves, mislead the American people, and, worst of all, give their wives a lifetime of ammunition?

To err is human, but to print, reprint, and re-reprint error-mad humans like me is a criminally moronic editorial policy.

Nor, of course, is it only me. Just consider who populates the opinion pages of America’s top newspapers. Bill Kristol, who was actually hired by The Times long after being proven wrong on Iraq. Charles Krauthammer. Robert Novak…Fred Barnes. The list goes on and on of officially-approved wise men (and a woman or two) who never once doubted that Iraq had vast stockpiles of W.M.D.s…

We were all wrong again and again — and the consequences were devastating. Can anyone tell me why any of us should ever be asked, let alone paid, for our opinions ever again?

Unlike Ehud Olmert’s recent interview in which he conceded the correctness of the last forty years of the anti-Occupation movement’s political analysis, this is the column Friedman should write, but never will.  The guy has too much hubris to admit his grievous error.

The DeBeers diamond ad was so chilling I just had to include it here. This is just brilliant political satire worthy of being disseminated far and wide. I immediately thought of David Bloom and his work with Adalah NY to publicize the harmful affects of Lev Leviev’s diamonds on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

McCain: NY Times Share Price Tanking Because It Favors Obama

Saturday, August 2nd, 2008

When the NY Times published a Barack Obama op-ed on Iraq the McCain campaign asked for equal time.  But after submitting his copy, the candidate became peeved when the editors asked him to revise it and add more substance.  He refused and figured he’d get some good mileage out of it with his conservative base: “Conservative Shut Out of Liberal Media Elite Club Again.”

Then the Times attacked McCain’s low-blow campaign ad likening Obama to Hollywood party girls like Paris Hilton.  This was too much for ragin’ John, whose campaign aide excoriated the paper with this rhetorical non sequitur:

“If the shareholders of The New York Times ever wonder why the paper’s ad revenue is plummeting and its share price tanking, they need look no further than the hysterical reaction of the paper’s editors to any slight, real or imagined, against their preferred candidate,” said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb.

There’s little danger of anyone in the McCain campaign ever paying much attention to petty things like logic or coherence in their statements.  In his eagerness to slam the paper he feasts on the Times’ financial troubles and presumes that their origin lies in its supposed favoritism toward Barack Obama.  Would that the American newspaper slump was so simple.  Then all newspapers would have to do was become conservative bastions (they’re not, are they?) and return, presto change-o, to financial health.

Since virtually every newspaper in America faces the same woes as the Times, I’m assuming that McCain’s home state paper, the Arizona Republic, must be hurting as well.  Does that mean that the Republic has been shilling for Barack too?

In a few months time, I’m hoping that McCain’s fundraising revenue will be ‘plummeting’ and his campaign’s ‘share price tanking.’  Then I’m gonna ask John whether perhaps it’s because American ‘shareholders,’ that would be us citizens, aren’t taking too kindly to his hysterical attacks on Obama.

Erlanger Offers MEMRI N.Y. Times Showcase

Tuesday, April 1st, 2008

I’ve been reading the NY Times for a long time. My father did before me. I read every article published there about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and often write about them here. I have a long and deep respect for the wonderful reporting that has come out of Israel in its pages. Steven Erlanger, the Jerusalem bureau chief, has, until now, been in that august tradition that included David Shipler, (the early) Tom Friedman, Deborah Sontag, James Bennett and Serge Schmemann. But he really let himself and his predecessors down today.

He wrote a terribly imbalanced story about incitement against Jews fomented by Hamas, which practically gave over his article to promote the views of propaganda outfits like MEMRI and Palestine Media Watch. In doing so, Erlanger touted them as if they were dispassionate, professionally competent observers of the Arab media. Nothing could farther from the truth. This sentence in particular is problematic:

Along with Mr. Marcus’s group, the Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri, also monitors the Arabic media. But no one disputes their translations

How can a journalist writing for as distinguished a newspaper as the Times make such a statement? For one, Brian Whitaker, an editor of The Guardian’s Comment is Free blog, has written regularly about MEMRI’s distorted translations of Arab media–translations which are designed more to prove ideological points rather than provide an well-grounded, proportionate picture of what the media is actually saying. These are a few of the columns he’s written over the years:

Selective MEMRI
Yigal Carmon-Brian Whitaker Debate
Arabic Under Fire
Arabsats Get the MEMRI Treatment

And Whitaker is not the only one. Any Google search would uncover multiple reputable media critiques of MEMRI and Palestine Media Watch.

Several images accompany the story including one with this caption:

In a play staged at a Gaza cultural center this month, a Palestinian farmer pulls his dead child from a house bombed by Israel.

I have no idea about the content of this play, but why would such a work be seen as an impermissible expression of anti-Jewish incitement? Are Gazans not allowed to dramatize their suffering as peoples of most other nations of the world do? Personally, I think Erlanger and his editors really lost their way on this story.

Let me take a slight detour by acknowledging there is hate and incitement against Israelis and Jews in Gaza. Hamas is an organization riddled with anti-Semitic attitudes. This is real. This is troubling. It is rightly written about in the Times and condemned by all who support tolerance and respect between both peoples and religions. But the grievous problem with Erlanger’s story is that he completely omits any context for it.

Why do Gazans hate Israelis and Jews? Could it possibly have a wee bit to do with Israel’s strangulation of the Gaza Strip and the privation that this has caused for the 1.5 million people who live there? If Steven Erlanger lived on handouts, couldn’t afford to feed his family, couldn’t get any medical treatment if his children became ill, couldn’t leave his home to travel anywhere for business or pleasure, and was treated as the enemy by an occupying power–might he not harbor deep hatred for those he blamed for such treatment? Might his hatred possibly even be irrational, prejudiced and grossly distorted? I don’t know. That’s for Erlanger to say. But if he’s honest and recognized human frailties shared by many of us, he might acknowledge this as a distinct possibility.

Erlanger also commits a sin of omission. He bangs on the incessant drumbeat of Muslim hate without acknowledging a problem as deeply troubling on the Israeli side: Jewish incitement against Arabs. I know something about this subject since I’ve just published a Comment is Free essay on it. There is a long tradition within Israel of such hatred against Israel’s perceived Arab enemies. And it is more than just words. It is hatred that has led to violence. Haaretz reported this week that a prominent Israeli Orthodox rabbi called for the children of Palestinians who murder Israelis to be hung from trees. Not the murderers, but their CHILDREN!

Erlanger somehow believes that this phenomenon is less pressing, less prevalent and less problematic than the hatred he wrote about in Gaza’s mosques. I beg to disagree. Such incitement led to the assassination of an Israeli prime minister who many serious analysts believe would have succeeded in resolving the I-P conflict had he lived. Jewish hate is no less poisonous and deadly than Muslim hate. Discount it at your peril.

I want to make clear that my purpose here is not to minimize or justify Palestinian hate. It is to point out that hate is not a one-way street, as Erlanger implies. It is a two-way street. And as long as journalism like this passes for fair and balanced, no one will be able to address the problems and divisions keeping both sides apart in order to bridge them.

Those like Erlanger who allow you to believe that only one side are to blame in causing this bloody mess of a conflict are doing a deep disservice to truth and history. Both sides are wrong. Both sides are imperfect. Both sides hate. Both sides must acknowledge their errors and turn away from them in a mutual compromise.

Bush Envies ‘Romance’ of Afghanistan Military Service

Sunday, March 16th, 2008

Bush, who used his family connections to avoid Vietnam, told troops serving in Afghanistan on Thursday that he is “a little envious” of their adventure there, saying it was “in some ways romantic.”

Can someone tell me where the ‘romance’ is? Only a guy who’s never served in a war could say wartime service was “romantic.” The closest this guy’s gotten to combat is watching Saving Private Ryan in the White House living quarters. He probably didn’t even watch that as it would’ve put him off the notion of war being jolly good manly fun. I won’t ask whether the guy’s taken leave of his senses because clearly, if he was ever in touch he hasn’t been for about the last seven years or so. But every day brings new confirmations of this like the passage above quoted in Maureen Dowd’s NY Times column today.

Ronen Bergman: Mugniyah Assassination and the Price of Vengeance

Monday, February 18th, 2008

Thank God for the clear-eyed thinking of Israelis like Ronen Bergman. Though he’s essentially recapitulating some of the major points of the Uri Avnery essay I’ve posted here, getting such views into the pages of the New York Times is a real achievement. Here are some of Bergman’s main points:

…However much backslapping and Champagne-cork popping may be going on in Tel Aviv and Langley, Va., the questions remains: Was it worth the effort and resources and the mortal risk to the agents involved? Few would deny that Mr. Mugniyah, who had the blood of many hundreds of Americans and Israelis, not to mention Frenchmen, Germans and Britons, on his hands, deserved the violent death that befell him, or that eliminating this top-flight mass murderer might prevent more death. But this act of combined vengeance, punishment and pre-emption might extract a far greater cost in the future.

…There are precedents. It was on Feb. 16, 1992, that Ehud Barak, then chief of staff of the Israeli military and now minister of defense, gave the order for two combat helicopters hovering over south Lebanon to rocket a convoy in which the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Abbas Musawi, was traveling. Sheik Musawi, his wife and his 6-year-old son were killed. The response was not long in coming: for five days, Katyusha rockets rained down on northern Israel. A 5-year-old girl was killed.

This was only the beginning. Watching television coverage of Sheik Musawi’s assassination at their home in Turkey had been Ehud Sadan, chief of security at the Israeli embassy in Ankara, and his wife. “I hope this doesn’t spark a war of assassinations,” Mrs. Sadan said. Her husband reassured her that nothing would happen. On March 7, he was blown up by a bomb planted under his car. The authorities arrested several members of Turkish Hezbollah, acting under orders from Mr. Mugniyah.

Ten days after that, Mr. Mugniyah’s men blew up the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 people and wounding more than 220. Two years later, in July of 1994, a suicide bomber struck at the offices of a Jewish community organization in Buenos Aires, killing 85. A joint investigation by Mossad and the Central Intelligence Agency uncovered clear evidence of Mr. Mugniyah’s involvement in all three bombings. The telephone monitors of the United States National Security Agency turned up “not a smoking gun, but a blazing cannon,” in the words of a Mossad official. A senior Hezbollah operative, Talal Hamiyah, was taped rejoicing with Mr. Mugniyah over “our project in Argentina” and mocking Israeli security services for not preventing it.

My point is not to defend Mugniyah as being a saint or even a hero to the Arab resistance. He was undoubtedly a scumbag as is anyone who engages in such killing of civilians (and I include Israeli generals in this category as well). The point is that strategically such acts simply DON’T WORK. They are palliatives that ease a symptom for a minute or an hour but eventually make the disease much worse. We’ll just have to wait and see for the proof of this statement to emerge, when we hear the news of the next Hezbollah attacks against Israeli or Jewish targets.

What is truly sad is that Bergman goes on the explain that Israeli governments between 1992 and now seemed to understand the logic of my statement above and refrained from such assassinations:

Ever since, the Israelis have been very cautious about assassinating Hezbollah leaders. Two weeks before Israel withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000, military intelligence had Mr. Mugniyah in its sights. Mr. Barak, then prime minister, ruled out a hit, for what he claims were operational reasons, but he surely had the aftermath of the Musawi assassination in mind.

Today, whether Mr. Barak has unlearned his lesson or not, Hezbollah has no doubt that it was Israel who eliminated its top terrorist, and once more it is bent on vengeance. As Hezbollah draws no fine distinctions between the United States and Israel, both nations, along with Jews around the world, might well have to pay the price for the loss of the man whose mystical aura was as important as his operational prowess.

In the immediate aftermath, Hezbollah has chosen not to respond with volleys of rockets aimed at Galilee, as many Israelis feared. But an inkling of how the group might respond can be found in the July 2007 statements of Michael McConnell, America’s director of national intelligence, expressing grave apprehension about Hezbollah sleeper cells in the United States that could go into action should the Americans cross the organization’s “red line.”

This line has now been crossed.

And now we wait for the bloody chickens to come home to roost. Some of my readers who oppose my views will no doubt claim that I’m somehow supporting or defending Hezbollah vengeance. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I oppose all violence especially against civilians no matter what side it comes from. But it is clear there will be a very high price for this apparent Israeli act of vengenace against Hezbollah. Denying this is simply denying past history and the logic of tit for tat vengeance of the Israeli-Arab conflict. It’s deeply ugly and inhumane. But when you play with fire, you and yours will get burned whatever side you’re on in this conflict.

Gaza Breaks Israeli Blockade

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008

Gazans tear down border fence“Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” (Kevin Frayer/AP)

To paraphrase Kris Kristofferson in the light of yesterday’s dramatic destruction of the Gaza border fence with Egypt: a siege is just another word for nothin’ left to lose. In other words, the Gazans came to the end of their rope and decided that since they couldn’t break out towards Israel that Egypt was the next most likely alternative. They in effect told the world: “if you won’t help us we’re not going to die here a slow death; we’re going to take our fate in our hands.” Kol hakavod lahem. Now, the rest of the world should bow its head in shame. It did nothing while 1.5 million Gazans suffered for the sole reason that a few hundred of them are firing rockets at Israel. This collective punishment, outlawed under international law, is what passes for sensible policy in Israeli circles.

The NY Times story claims that Israel is satisfied with what happened because it will supposedly mean that Egypt will take this problem off their hands:

A senior Israeli official…said the development might solve a problem.

“This may be a blessing in disguise,” he said…“If it continues like this, it will ease tremendously the pressure on Israel on the humanitarian level. The humanitarian organizations will get off our backs. There won’t be any shortages. So that is a good thing. We don’t care if people buy food in Egypt…

“Second — there’s a notion that Barak believes in — and I think Sharon did too — of getting out of Gaza, and throwing away the keys…”

Another Israeli official said of the border: “…Some people in the Defense Ministry, Foreign Ministry and prime minister’s office are very happy with this. They are saying, ‘At last, the disengagement is beginning to work.’ ”

Beginning to work? How so? Do they really believe that the Qassams will stop merely because Gazans can now buy bread in Egypt? If Israel really believes this and isn’t merely making lemonade from overripe lemons, they’re more foolish than I thought. Those enormous holes in the border fence also poked enormous holes in the vaunted international siege of Gaza of which Israel was the prime instigator.

This Hamas statement too seems a calculated attempt to throw Israeli settlement policy (“creating facts on the ground” as Sharon used to call it) back in Israel’s face:

Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas official in Gaza, refused in an interview to take direct responsibility for ordering the Egyptian border opened, but said: “We are creating facts. We have to try to change the situation, and now we await the results.”

With the crossings to Israel closed and minimal goods coming in, Mr. Zahar said: “Rafah is our only lung. If Rafah remains shut, it means our acceptance to be strangled, our acceptance to die. We warned the Egyptians yesterday that people are hungry and dying.” Sometimes, he acknowledged, it was necessary to create a crisis to settle another one.

In other words, if you refuse to accept the reality imposed on you, then create a new one by sheer pluck. That’s what happened yesterday.

And for anyone parachuting into this blog from the moon who has never read me before: none of the above should be read to imply approval of the attacks against Sderot, which I abhor. I’d just as soon see the Islamic Jihad and Hamas rocketeers in the dock at the Hague along with Barak and all those who planned this stupid siege.